4 ms·
Let's completely forget for a second that the article wasn't basically prescribing ClojureScript as a omnisolution that we're all dumb for not converting to - i
by tomlin 5y ago
Let's completely forget for a second that the article wasn't basically prescribing ClojureScript as a omnisolution that we're all dumb for not converting to - it was my opposition that the point is ignorant of 99.5% of the rest of the world. His argument was that is was readable - it isn't. Again, ask someone who's learning whether it's readable. And I better not find you in a thread, arguing that semantic HTML is far superior while you flog for a non-semantic language.
- askonomm 5y agoI think you are delusional. Me writing in a blog post that I like Clojure and I recommend you trying it is very far removed from "prescribing ClojureScript as a omnisolution" especially as I specifically mention that all I write also applies in regular JS and React.js. If a friend recommends you try out a beer he/she likes, are they also prescribing that beer as an omnisolution? Because that's what you're saying. Ridiculous. Go yell at someone else for writing a blog post in a programming language you don't understand. There's a lot of blog posts to yell at out there. And I'm sure they didn't consult children before writing them as well! The tragedy!
- tomlin 5y agoIt's not a readable, semantic language. You can dance around it with all kinds of gish-gallop. If a friend recommends you try a beer, and you can't read the label, I guess that makes the beer more attractive? okay.