News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Readable Clojure by michaelmrose on Thursday May 25, 2017 @12:02AM (#14415230)
I would rather chunks of functionality not be removed from tools to suit other peoples aesthetic sensibilities.
Re:Readable Clojure by allengeorge on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:28AM (#14417125)
Not all features have equivalent upside (I.e. Some features have very limited upside and significant cost, in terms of maintainability etc.) When creating a codebase we should be conservative with the features we use - and this is all the article is arguing for.
Re:Readable Clojure by mercer on Thursday May 25, 2017 @11:31AM (#14417909)
I feel this way about the destructuring assignment and spread syntax in javascript, or at least a little bit.

It's incredibly convenient to use, but sometimes when I look at 'idiomatic' React code, in particular in the context of Redux, I can't help but feel it's a bit too much, especially when I look at the code through 'teacher' eyes, and especially when it's combined with JSX. And that's not even mentioning the arrow function variants, default parameters, and other ESNext goodies.

And yet I find it difficult to keep my hands off it, because it's just so damn convenient.

Re:Readable Clojure by daxfohl on Thursday May 25, 2017 @01:12PM (#14418607)
I believe I've heard it said: the most difficult thing when building a language is not deciding which features to add, but which features to leave out.
Re:Readable Clojure by allengeorge on Sunday May 28, 2017 @09:44AM (#14434350)
This is a pretty common maxim, and applies to any design exercise :)

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "

-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery