On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:12:01 PM UTC-4, g vim wrote: > > On 02/05/2015 22:06, Fluid Dynamics wrote: > > > > Those numbers aren't going to be an apples-to-apples comparison. > > "Contributors" may be lower for the Clojure libs because as a Lisp it > > enables them to be enormously more productive (up to 10x) than the other > > languages. The greater expressiveness allows the same functionality to > > live in a smaller codebase (as measured in LOC), likely reducing the > > number of commits for a given amount of functionality. And Clojure's > > concurrency and immutability constructs likely reduce the number of > > bugs, and thus the number of tickets and the number of commits whose > > primary purpose is to fix bugs. > > > > Considering 3 of those languages - Elixir, Haskell and Scala - are > functional with immutable data structures and equivalent concurrency to > Clojure's I can't quite agree with you. >
Ah, but none of them are Lisps. No macros, no DSLs, and thus much less of the productivity/code-size-efficiency gains. -- 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.
