1,625 karma · joined February 9, 2009
What do you think Clojure's absence from zdnet's list indicates?
Rewrites are notoriously risky projects, I'm surprised you suggest this the majority of the time.
> you have to trust that the original programmers actually know the language enough to not create a massive disaster
This is my experience, but I've come across many coding disasters and none have been caused by misunderstanding the programming language. All have been due to poor software design or testing.
> Once this happens, you end up in a read-only code situation, and this is a problem because they leave the project with tons of bugs and downright stupid decisions.
Why have you pinned the blame on Clojure? What are the properties of Clojure that cause programs written in it to have so many bugs? Programming languages don't make decisions, let alone stupid ones.
> I joke that I know all 50 Clojure programmers in the US, and sadly, that's not much of an overstatement
This is a massive overstatement. Netflix, Apple, Soundcloud, and Walmart are all using Clojure. I work on a large team of Clojure developers, many of whom are located in the US. The Clojure community is large, healthy and growing. This is not an "esoteric" language.
> If you aren't located in SF, LA, or some other city that attracts talent
I work with Clojure developers all over the world, many in small towns in their respective country. My address hasn't been a factor for any tooling decision I've been a part of, it's a strange (overlooked?) criteria by which to judge technology.
I'm skeptical that something this prescriptive could be effective, but it'd be great if there was evidence (anecdotal or a study) that shows this is effective.
[1]: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/rails.gemspec#L28
Bacon.js is a library that exposes a similar technique (FRP), and their readme outlines the benefits in tangible terms
Distributing programs in written in Go is _much_ easier that distributing them in Ruby, i.e. cross compile and ship the binary, but distribution of Ruby programs is hard.
Too much time is wasted on 'omnibus' projects to distribute Ruby programs, just look at Chef or Sensu or Mitchell's own Vagrant installers project:
https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant-installers
(I don't mean to say those projects were a waste of time, but that it seems like this should be a 'solved' problem).
I for one would like to see a focus put on cleaning up the standard library (gem-ifying much of it?) rather than a design committee.
Send praise to https://github.com/kien!
See this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and...
Also, Apple isn't justifying its huge margins. Everyone who buys an Apple product is.
Which phones?
The other thing that bothers me is the empty 'Use cases' page. Scala macros might be a solution to a problem nobody has. A problem that people _do_ have is the breadth of Scala language, and macros will add to the conceptual dog pile.