I've read the original article and, to be quite honest, couldn't actually determine what point it was trying to make. The action items seemed to have very little to do with the rest of the rant.
I actually read the response first and the weird thing is: I couldn't really tell you what exactly the response is replying to. I feel like the whole thing is a huge amount of verbiage expressing frustration and broken motives but any actual solid facts mentioned are peripheral at best to what's being said.
I could write multiple pages on how I fell out of love with Clojure but I doubt it would benefit anyone and it'd be a huge pain to do.
Clojure is the product of a singular aesthetic, for better or worse.
I actually read the response first and the weird thing is: I couldn't really tell you what exactly the response is replying to. I feel like the whole thing is a huge amount of verbiage expressing frustration and broken motives but any actual solid facts mentioned are peripheral at best to what's being said.
I could write multiple pages on how I fell out of love with Clojure but I doubt it would benefit anyone and it'd be a huge pain to do.
Clojure is the product of a singular aesthetic, for better or worse.