Comment by rfreytag | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rfreytag | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Something about a commercial website with its sense of self-interest versus welcoming-user-focus causes me a gut bad reaction.

Postgres is an good example of doing this right IMHO: http://www.postgres.com the commercial aspects are underplayed and yet they have a good business. With Postgres I feel I can contribute even if I am not part of the "core." I think Clojure and the businesses around it benefit from keeping the same open, welcoming feeling.

I have been very interested in Clojure and haven't seen it put a foot wrong so far. This is an unexpected "off" note.

EDIT: Languages and tools do prosper and my point here is to highlight how they do so by building a community and what Clojure's "core" risk through making this distinction.

EDIT: I know about http://clojure.org - my point is that http://postgres.com (note the .com) downplays the us-vs-them-ness that comes with a commercial tombstone site. Also the announced redirect indicates to me the change in tone is intentional - I hope they readjust. They can keep the community-sense and still have a good business.

I think the us v.s. them aspect of this is all in your head. We all like working on our hobbies, but unless we're able to get paid for it that's all they'll ever be.

Clojure has been trying to solve this problem for a while (see http://clojure.org/funding). If they're able to make something like this work then I think that's great. It's still an open source project, it's not like they'll be rejecting patches because they come from the wrong people.

It just means that more people can do Clojure for a living, which'll improve the language itself and the platform for everyone.

You may have missed my point. I take time to offer supported criticism because I want to see Clojure succeed. To succeed, Clojure must keep the community or there is no business in supporting the language.

Some language comparisons: Perl got where it is on the strength of its community which now supports many language-focused businesses. Community is also cited as one of the strengths of Python and Ruby which also have associated thriving businesses. Community is regularly cited as a problem with LISP (wait, wait, hold the spears - I'm a LISPer too!). PTL Scheme is the exception that seems to prove the rule - good community there.

Languages and tools do prosper and my point here is to highlight how they do so by building a community and what Clojure's "core" risk through making this distinction.

I see I may initiate a language dispute and that is not my intention. Other projects just seem the best source of supporting comparisons.

http://clojure.org

Why do you think it is a bad idea to differentiate clearly (.com vs. .org) between the business and community aspects of Clojure?

I understand biz talk is a bit of a turnoff when primarily interested in the community aspects but I would expect somebody with limited technical understanding but responsibility on the biz side to prefer a site addressing their immediate concerns (which I think clojure.com does fine).

The only nitpick I would have is that it is not obvious to me if they're targeting startups or established businesses. In the later case "Training" (or "Coaching"?), "Development" (or "Seeding"?) and "Support" might be more on target than "Mentor", "Dev", and "Sustain". In the former (= startup) case I imagine their wording to be very good, but does anybody know if there is actually a market in Development and/or Mentoring consulting for startups?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com