Gregg,
> My original comment on litprog ("bad bad bad") was admittedly a little
> strong. I think its bad for some things, fine for others. And it's
> possible litprog conventions will evolve to address the problems some of us
> see with using it for programming in the large etc.
Could you explain what "some of the problems some of us see with using
it for programming in the large" might be? It is hard to refute
"bad bad bad" and other assertions without specific examples.
Axiom (1.2 million lines of lisp) is being rewritten into a literate
program. So far I can't think of a problem. Clojure is being reworked
into literate form already and I can't see a problem other than trying
to understand and explain code I didn't write (reading code is hard).
The Clojure community isn't ready to make the leap into a literate
world. I understand that. But Clojure is still at the stage of writing
new code for new uses. There are few people who need to modify code
written by programmers who left the community. That's when the need
will arise for clearly communicating ideas to other humans.
The technical debt has not come due ... but it will.
Tim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
