[theclay]

I see a lot of people bashing Yegge, bashing Tiobe, praising Clojure, and praising Rich Hickey. All of that is strawman bullshit though as far as I can tell.

Virtually no one seems to be addressing what I think is Yegge's core point: neglect.

Is it true that there is a considerable body of extant patches/libraries/fixes out there that are being neglected so that a sizable portion of Clojure's user base is feeling neglected.

If so, then Yegge has a valid point. If not, then argue why he is wrong about neglect.

[spooneybarger]

I wonder... have you heard Rich Hickey ever talk about many of those patches and why they haven't been accepted yet? Clojure has a great deal of conformity across its abstractions and interfaces. It is really easy to compose things together. A lot of thought and careful planning goes into that. Many patches etc run afoul of that because they don't meet that standard.

As to libraries, you don't need to be blessed for a library to go. How exactly does clojure core neglect a library? By not taking it into the core?

I didn't read this as being about neglect. I think his argument was that you need to give people what they want or they will leave. I don't find any validity in that. There are plenty of BDFL projects that do quite well.

I think the real message is... 'I want these things. Why won't get you give them to me.' If this was anything other than a bit of a childish rant, there would have been much better channels to carry it out in.

If you want people to change, you don't attack them in public. If you want to make yourself feel good and vent, you attack people in public.

[theclay]

Thank you.

This is the kind of response I was hoping to see. I'm not qualified to comment at all on Clojure, but I was interested to see what people thought who were part of this community.

I wish more people would address these points. If Clojure really is fine the way it is then argue that point positively rather than chip away at Strawman arguments, which, at best, were only tangential.

Finally, I'm not so sure about the public-private point you are making. There's a reason we protect free (public) speech: being publicly criticized is much harder to ignore than private requests.

This rant has become front page material on Hacker News. That's pressure. If there really is dissatisfaction amongst the Clojure community, this won't be the last time we'll be reading about this particular exchange.

[spooneybarger]

The public/private was...

If you want to influence people, attacking them in public isn't the best way to go about it. Do it privately, discuss your concerns etc etc. If you just go for the public 'you are doing it wrong' approach, you breed resentment & distrust. OTOH, a good rant in public sure can make you feel good even if it probably isn't going to sway your target to your side. Then again, that wasn't really the reason it was done, was it?

Or put another way... if you are going to rant, rant. Don't pretend like your public ranting at someone is an attempt to get them to agree with you. It is about making yourself feel better. If you need/want to convince someone to join your side of an argument, quiet diplomacy is going to be far more effective.

[technomancy]

> Many patches etc run afoul of that because they don't meet that standard.

The problem is not that they aren't applied, it's that they are ignored without discussion of their faults.