3 ms·

> As a language geek, Clojure does not provide a lot of new things I found it interesting that matz would say that, given how little ruby innovates in terms of

> As a language geek, Clojure does not provide a lot of new things I found it interesting that matz would say that, given how little ruby innovates in terms of programming concepts. > I'm a language geek, so I'm not really interested in using it, but I'm pretty interested in studying it That probably means that if Matz stumbled upon ruby, he wouldn't even have bothered looking at it. EDIT: I'll extend on my comment a little. I think both ruby and clojure are language designed to be used by regular programmers, even if clojure probably aims more at 'language geeks' as Matz says. So i'd say, whatever his justifications are, it would have been interesting if Matz looked at both languages in a similar way. Also i'd say that for such languages, it's more the way that 'features' are assembled, and which restrictions are imposed to the programmer, that makes the language interesting or not, and that if examined under that angle, clojure takes a bolder step in the direction of interesting IMHO. EDIT2: I'm not flaming, just expressing my point of view, so if you downvote, have at least the courtesy of explaining why you disagree.

Andys 17y ago
I wasn't one who downvoted you, but I think the problem is it felt like you were taking quotes out of context in order to start a flamewar. It would have been interesting to hear Matz elaborate on what he thought of Clojure, since it sounded like he was looking at it too much from the point of a language geek and not someone who ever wants to use it to make something real.
- Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  In that case i apologize if what i say has seemed offensive in any way. I don't mean to flame on ruby, i think it's a good language, that i certainly enjoy using. What i intent to say is that if Matz looked at his own language the same way he looks at clojure, he wouldn't find anything new. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. It's also something that is stated very clearly in Matz intents regarding ruby. So i guess the very point i want to make is that, if Matz is searching ways to improve ruby, and it looks like he is, i think he shouldn't only look at languages who have interesting 'new' features, but also at the way new interesting languages combines 'known' features, because it's often enough to create a totally new workflow for programmers.
tumult 17y ago
He's not bashing on Clojure, he just states that it does not introduce many new concepts. And I would agree. Clojure does not really introduce anything new -- it bundles a bunch of existing stuff together into a more readily usable, cohesive platform. Clojure is interesting to look at for how it practically implements things, not how it introduces entirely new concepts. (to be clear, I'm not saying this out of defense of Ruby, which I don't have much experience with personally)
- Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  Well i'm sorry if that wasn't clear in the first place , but i actually agree with matz. I don't intend to bash on ruby either, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1077664 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1077664 for a more clear (i think) expression of what i meant
- dkersten 17y ago
  Agreed. Nothing in Clojure is new - its all been done before. Its the combination of features that make it interesting. Having said that, I don't think Ruby has anything new either and I find Ruby interesting for the exact same reasons that I find Clojure interesting: its combination of features.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  I think Clojure "agents" might be new.
  - jerf 17y ago
    What specifically about them do you think is new? I don't know Clojure so I can't judge it, but the idea of "agents" goes back decades, and languages such as Erlang that have been around for a long time have implemented various versions fairly well. Perhaps there is something new, but the space is fairly well covered by lesser-known-but-usable languages, if unheard of in the mainstream. (I use that phrase to draw a distinction against purely academic languages; implementing things there hardly counts.)

Andys 17y ago

I wasn't one who downvoted you, but I think the problem is it felt like you were taking quotes out of context in order to start a flamewar. It would have been interesting to hear Matz elaborate on what he thought of Clojure, since it sounded like he was looking at it too much from the point of a language geek and not someone who ever wants to use it to make something real.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
In that case i apologize if what i say has seemed offensive in any way. I don't mean to flame on ruby, i think it's a good language, that i certainly enjoy using. What i intent to say is that if Matz looked at his own language the same way he looks at clojure, he wouldn't find anything new. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. It's also something that is stated very clearly in Matz intents regarding ruby. So i guess the very point i want to make is that, if Matz is searching ways to improve ruby, and it looks like he is, i think he shouldn't only look at languages who have interesting 'new' features, but also at the way new interesting languages combines 'known' features, because it's often enough to create a totally new workflow for programmers.

tumult 17y ago

He's not bashing on Clojure, he just states that it does not introduce many new concepts. And I would agree. Clojure does not really introduce anything new -- it bundles a bunch of existing stuff together into a more readily usable, cohesive platform. Clojure is interesting to look at for how it practically implements things, not how it introduces entirely new concepts. (to be clear, I'm not saying this out of defense of Ruby, which I don't have much experience with personally)

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
Well i'm sorry if that wasn't clear in the first place , but i actually agree with matz. I don't intend to bash on ruby either, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1077664 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1077664 for a more clear (i think) expression of what i meant
dkersten 17y ago
Agreed. Nothing in Clojure is new - its all been done before. Its the combination of features that make it interesting. Having said that, I don't think Ruby has anything new either and I find Ruby interesting for the exact same reasons that I find Clojure interesting: its combination of features.
JulianMorrison 17y ago
I think Clojure "agents" might be new.
- jerf 17y ago
  What specifically about them do you think is new? I don't know Clojure so I can't judge it, but the idea of "agents" goes back decades, and languages such as Erlang that have been around for a long time have implemented various versions fairly well. Perhaps there is something new, but the space is fairly well covered by lesser-known-but-usable languages, if unheard of in the mainstream. (I use that phrase to draw a distinction against purely academic languages; implementing things there hardly counts.)