Maybe a better word for complecting is "entangling". Saludos, Nahuel Greco.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (Clojure's vocabulary is not to be questioned...why say "conflate" or > "confuse" when you can say "complect" to reinforce in-group membership ?) > /rant > > THANK YOU! I can't count the number of times I've had to restrain myself > from an apoplectic rant about this hideous non-word. What is wrong with > "complicate" FFS?! > > Careful - ‘complect’ has a very specific meaning which is compatible with > the notion of conflate. Confusion on the other hand is far more about > familiarity. The whole point of the Simple made Easy talk was to propose > that the ‘complexity’ of something is a mathematical measurement (loosely, > the number of concerns in that atomic thing). Simple on the other hand was > about your familiarity with the thing. > > Confusion is somewhat orthogonal to complexity as it is more to do with > the _understanding_ of the thing. > > > On 23 Nov 2015, at 22:23, Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 23, 2015 6:34 AM, "Bobby Bobble" <bpb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > let's not forget that Clojure's datastructures are objects. They respond > to messages like seq, first, rest etc (which requires a bit more complexity > than what Clojurians hail as "just data", which would be like > 1010101111110101011111000110000011...what Clojurians really mean by that > term is something like "uniform access to objects") > > Hmm. If by "object" you mean entity, thing, value, etc. - i.e. > mathematical structure - then I'd agree, but in my view Clojure does not > involve OO "objects" in any way, _conceptually_. "This function is > defined on that type" != "that type 'responds to' this function" . > > > > > (Clojure's vocabulary is not to be questioned...why say "conflate" or > "confuse" when you can say "complect" to reinforce in-group membership ?) > /rant > > THANK YOU! I can't count the number of times I've had to restrain myself > from an apoplectic rant about this hideous non-word. What is wrong with > "complicate" FFS?! > > > > > anyway to the point, it depends what you mean by "objects". > > > > > What you propose is to use maps as a kind of namespace for functions. > It's a good idea. I use this pattern too. Really, namespaces should be > maps...actually I think there was a project called Kiss to that end. > > To the OP's original point: you can view functions as data, but I find > myself moving toward a view of data as functions. E.g. it's as nullary fns. > > > > But real OO, as realized by Smalltalk and Self is about messaging, not > objects. > > Thank you again. Objective C is another good example. Dunno why they > called it OO in the first place. > > AFAIA there's no way in Clojure to represent "the invocation of a function > on a thing" the way you can represent "the sending of a message to an > object" in Smalltalk. > > Not quite sure what you mean, but with stuff like core.async and protocols > it's possible to support an explicit msg - passing idiom in Clojure. But I > think I agree with you. It would be something you build on more primitive > notions. > > Gregg > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
