> On Aug 20, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Brian, let's make it more concrete then...why should the Clojure compiler > continue to support undocumented features that make code unportable?
Because: 1. People who want to port to clojurescript will incur exactly the same cost as they do now. 2. People who don’t want to port to clojurescript will incur no additional cost. 3. Clojurescript maintainers will incur no additional cost. 4. Clojure maintainers will incur the cost of adding “or symbol” to current code. 5. No one writing documentation will incur any cost, as what was not mentioned before will continue to be unmentioned. 6. There will be a psychic cost because of an undocumented inconsistency between clojure and clojurescript. 7. If, at some point, clojure and clojurescript shared code for the implementation of `ns`, one or the other would have to change the pre 1.9-alpha11 behavior. Do I have this enumeration of costs wrong? It’s a bit surprising to me that my explicit appeal to consider costs and benefits to real people is not being addressed. -- 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.
