richhickey

12 ms·

61.
by richhickey 16y ago
> Essentially this means we have made the large majority of bugs impossible to be made in this language Oh, please. Such a statement ignores the actual kinds of bugs that plague real complex systems. The abilities of static type systems
62.
by richhickey 16y ago
I think you are looking right past the people who are helping, who have stepped up, volunteered, and are doing something. The priority isn't on giving the community fast response times. That is not a goal in and of itself. It is on making
63.
by richhickey 16y ago
You are simply wrong about the patch process. It is no longer the case that I am the bottleneck. Many people have worked hard to put in place the organization and systems to make sure this is so. We have meetings on a regular basis, and man
64.
by richhickey 16y ago
Correct, promotion will no longer be automatic because the semantics of primitive and auto-promoting arithmetic can't be unified (on the JVM with no fixnums, the return types are disjoint). However, missing from the blog post and discussion
65.
by richhickey 17y ago
Actually it was inspired by Mathematica: http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/Slot.html
66.
by richhickey 17y ago
Yes, there is a tautology, and I'm glad you understand it, but such understanding is not widespread I assure you. You are right, no one says "time management". I don't think they said "memory management" as often either, until there was au
67.
by richhickey 17y ago
Yes, Clojure is full of old ideas. I've never claimed otherwise. Unfortunately, they have yet to gain significant traction as currently embodied. Clojure is just an attempt to make them palatable and practical (and fun). I would never argue
68.
by richhickey 17y ago
> DateDatum lastUpdate = now (); //... doSomething(); lastUpdate = now(); Yes, this highlights the crux of the argument: MutableDate lastUpdate = now(); doSomething(); lastUpdate.changeInPlace(); versus: ImmutableDate lastUpdate = now()
69.
by richhickey 17y ago
Like this? http://github.com/richhickey/clojure/blob/26f5aed73c9cc2959b... http://paste.lisp.org/display/84027 It's coming, Rich
70.
by richhickey 17y ago
I'm sure I selected it, but I didn't realize it hadn't gone into the list. Now fixed - thanks.
71.
by richhickey 18y ago
> Clojure objects are Java Objects, so they must be boxed & unboxed by the JVM. I presume you meant Clojure numbers, because there is no notion of 'boxing' for reference types. For all non-numeric objects, the Clojure representation
72.
by richhickey 18y ago
Clojure also supports this Lispier syntax: (.someMethod instance)