> As a language geek, Clojure does not provide a lot of new things
I found it interesting that matz would say that, given how little ruby innovates in terms of programming concepts.
> I'm a language geek, so I'm not really interested in using it, but I'm pretty interested in studying it
That probably means that if Matz stumbled upon ruby, he wouldn't even have bothered looking at it.
EDIT:
I'll extend on my comment a little. I think both ruby and clojure are language designed to be used by regular programmers, even if clojure probably aims more at 'language geeks' as Matz says. So i'd say, whatever his justifications are, it would have been interesting if Matz looked at both languages in a similar way.
Also i'd say that for such languages, it's more the way that 'features' are assembled, and which restrictions are imposed to the programmer, that makes the language interesting or not, and that if examined under that angle, clojure takes a bolder step in the direction of interesting IMHO.
EDIT2: I'm not flaming, just expressing my point of view, so if you downvote, have at least the courtesy of explaining why you disagree.
He's not bashing on Clojure, he just states that it does not introduce many new concepts. And I would agree. Clojure does not really introduce anything new -- it bundles a bunch of existing stuff together into a more readily usable, cohesive platform. Clojure is interesting to look at for how it practically implements things, not how it introduces entirely new concepts.
(to be clear, I'm not saying this out of defense of Ruby, which I don't have much experience with personally)
Nothing in Clojure is new - its all been done before. Its the combination of features that make it interesting.
Having said that, I don't think Ruby has anything new either and I find Ruby interesting for the exact same reasons that I find Clojure interesting: its combination of features.
Well i'm sorry if that wasn't clear in the first place , but i actually agree with matz. I don't intend to bash on ruby either, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1077664 for a more clear (i think) expression of what i meant
What specifically about them do you think is new? I don't know Clojure so I can't judge it, but the idea of "agents" goes back decades, and languages such as Erlang that have been around for a long time have implemented various versions fairly well.
Perhaps there is something new, but the space is fairly well covered by lesser-known-but-usable languages, if unheard of in the mainstream. (I use that phrase to draw a distinction against purely academic languages; implementing things there hardly counts.)
Well, message passing actors have their own theory and calculus (based on particle physics, actually), and there have been "agents" in the form of interprocess mobile code, but the idea of pure functions as messages and the recipient (the so called "agent") being just a dynamically typed blob of data with an associated thread and possible associated watchers - that's new. I don't think it has a theory, yet.
I wasn't one who downvoted you, but I think the problem is it felt like you were taking quotes out of context in order to start a flamewar.
It would have been interesting to hear Matz elaborate on what he thought of Clojure, since it sounded like he was looking at it too much from the point of a language geek and not someone who ever wants to use it to make something real.
In that case i apologize if what i say has seemed offensive in any way.
I don't mean to flame on ruby, i think it's a good language, that i certainly enjoy using. What i intent to say is that if Matz looked at his own language the same way he looks at clojure, he wouldn't find anything new. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. It's also something that is stated very clearly in Matz intents regarding ruby.
So i guess the very point i want to make is that, if Matz is searching ways to improve ruby, and it looks like he is, i think he shouldn't only look at languages who have interesting 'new' features, but also at the way new interesting languages combines 'known' features, because it's often enough to create a totally new workflow for programmers.
I love the content on this website; hate the horrible design.
Before I discovered Readability, I always ended up using "View Source" to read the interviews.
I found it interesting that matz would say that, given how little ruby innovates in terms of programming concepts.
> I'm a language geek, so I'm not really interested in using it, but I'm pretty interested in studying it
That probably means that if Matz stumbled upon ruby, he wouldn't even have bothered looking at it.
EDIT:
I'll extend on my comment a little. I think both ruby and clojure are language designed to be used by regular programmers, even if clojure probably aims more at 'language geeks' as Matz says. So i'd say, whatever his justifications are, it would have been interesting if Matz looked at both languages in a similar way.
Also i'd say that for such languages, it's more the way that 'features' are assembled, and which restrictions are imposed to the programmer, that makes the language interesting or not, and that if examined under that angle, clojure takes a bolder step in the direction of interesting IMHO.
EDIT2: I'm not flaming, just expressing my point of view, so if you downvote, have at least the courtesy of explaining why you disagree.