Unfortunately, IMHO Clojure’s maintainers hold an iron grip on the language and actively limit the growth of an ecosystem around it. See “Open Source is not about you”.
It’s too bad, because itself is really terrific.
It’s too bad, because itself is really terrific.
Comparing to other languages I think the stability of the language has served the user community really well and been an enabler of the ecosystem. I guess the continuous language additions and resulting complexity & library/framework chuirn in some otherlanguages can also be seen as vitality and growth, but for many of us it's the wrong kind of growth.
(And yes there are also disadvantages to the centralised development model of the core language)
edit: there's a good summary of the discourse surrounding this post in the reddit comments at the time: https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/a0pjq9/rich_hickey...
The usual "expect all for free, give nothing back" attitude.
Stability is extremely valuable. A lack of change to the core language over extended periods of time can be a very good thing, especially if certain changes would break existing code. Rich has made it clear that he is indeed targeting this kind of stability.
Again, I would be very interested to hear what specific changes you think need to be made to 'Clojure "the language"'.
So... you meant 'ossified' in a good way?? If so, I guess I would have used a different term that didn't have such a negative connotation.