>
>
> This reminds me of the discussions on the C++ Standards Committee
> about compatibility with C wherein Andrew Koenig coined the phrase "As
> close as possible to C - but no closer"... perhaps Rich feels Clojure
> is "as close as possible to simple - but no closer"? :)
>
In that case we've co
Yes, Easy to track.
Nevertheless this definition passes Rich's list.
--
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
Interesting discussion of this talk, including comments from Rich (or
at least someone claiming to be Rich):
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/lirke/simple_made_easy_by_rich_hickey_video/
On Oct 25, 7:00 am, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> 2011/10/25 Michael Jaaka :
>
> > Something is simple a
2011/10/25 Michael Jaaka :
> Something is simple as long as your mental model is simple to
> track. Something which doesn't cause you headache.
Disagree. The whole point of Rich's talk is to have people not
conflate "simple" and "easy", or it seems to me that this is what
you're doing here.
"simpl
Something is simple as long as your mental model is simple to
track. Something which doesn't cause you headache.
If you can't build mental model in your head, then its definitely not
simple.
Every time you think I have mental model which works like this, but before
this I must remember about thi
I think Clojure is simple in design, complex in implementation. Dealing with
the JVM introduces all sorts of complexity. Dealing with *hardware*
introduces complexity. Perfection is only possible in the abstract.
Compromises are always needed, and Clojure generally makes good ones. But
there ma
2011/10/22 Tim Robinson :
> So I've read the previous post > Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from
> Strange Loop 2011, but I wanted to ask some simple questions not
> complected by the interweaving path the other has post followed (is
> 'complected' even a word? - lol) .
>
> I know the presentatio
Simplicity was described as being a property of the artefact, not the
construct wasn't it? So I'm not sure what it means exactly for Clojure to
be simple or complex.
Does Clojure allow you to write artefacts that are simple? Yeah, I think
so, and I think it often makes it easier.
There was a ta
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tim Robinson wrote:
> (is 'complected' even a word? - lol) .
OED: http://photo.pds.org:5004/view/Entry/37640?redirectedFrom=complect#eid
> Do the Clojure language designers plan to make changes to Clojure to
> make it simpler? And if so, how so?
This reminds me
So I've read the previous post > Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from
Strange Loop 2011, but I wanted to ask some simple questions not
complected by the interweaving path the other has post followed (is
'complected' even a word? - lol) .
I know the presentation was, while inclusive of Clojure, no
10 matches
Mail list logo
