> Wouldn't it be more productive to praise for what you like than crap on how someone used to do something you didn't like?
My apologies; I don't mean to insult. Thanks for the reply. My point is that it says something about what the core team thinks is important. Glad to hear that the team has been accepting doc PR's for years now.
> Isn't it a good thing that Clojure is such as productive tool that it can support a consulting company that can afford to pay decent salaries so the core team can continue working full time on Clojure making it even better?
I think we're arguing at cross-purposes. Certainly Clojure is a productive environment. But I'm interested in community-focused projects. These projects often have less corporate adoption than projects like Clojure. I was disappointed with Clojure, but not because it lacked a company championing it (it has one), not because it lacked corporate adoption (it doesn't), and not because there's anything in particular wrong with the language (I think it's an excellent language) -- by those metrics Clojure is certainly successful.
I'm amazed when people complain that they can't get their boss on board with introducing Clojure into their enterprise Java project. That appears to me to be exactly the market Clojure is targeting and succeeding in, when employed there.
> Clojure is settled. It found its niche: a small/medium group of experienced professionals who like its practicality and power.
Agreed. I'll add though that the problems with Clojure are soft ones. Here's my summation:
* it's business- and Java-friendly. Enterprise-focused.
* it's quite beautiful, though steeped in Java-isms
* its license is GPL-incompatible
* it's not a community-focused language and project; it's Cognitect's [edit: Rich's] project which they're graciously sharing with us.
That last one (IMO, the last two items) is a problem. For example:
* docstrings. Real improvements from the community?
* Lein? The clear winner, and yet for the longest time there was no mention of it in the getting-started guide on clojure.org, and then Boot was created. And then clj. NIH?
* It took ages until they began accepting PR's for their docs.
* I don't know the status of improving error messages. They've been complained about for years.
Clojure is Cognitect's [edit: Rich's] industrial-strength enterprise-ready Java-replacement and they sell consulting services for that. That's what Clojure is for and it's very good at that. It's also a seductively beautiful language, but if you're expecting a community-driven project with grassroots adoption and support, you're going to be disappointed.
My apologies; I don't mean to insult. Thanks for the reply. My point is that it says something about what the core team thinks is important. Glad to hear that the team has been accepting doc PR's for years now.
> Isn't it a good thing that Clojure is such as productive tool that it can support a consulting company that can afford to pay decent salaries so the core team can continue working full time on Clojure making it even better?
I think we're arguing at cross-purposes. Certainly Clojure is a productive environment. But I'm interested in community-focused projects. These projects often have less corporate adoption than projects like Clojure. I was disappointed with Clojure, but not because it lacked a company championing it (it has one), not because it lacked corporate adoption (it doesn't), and not because there's anything in particular wrong with the language (I think it's an excellent language) -- by those metrics Clojure is certainly successful.
I'm amazed when people complain that they can't get their boss on board with introducing Clojure into their enterprise Java project. That appears to me to be exactly the market Clojure is targeting and succeeding in, when employed there.