aredington

I can appreciate the fun of doing things like implementing a list comprehension and the excitement of both applying macros in a useful way and being able to tell other people about it. I found the tone of the linked article to sound self impressed to a point I personally found distasteful, and after reviewing it again I don't see any mention of Clojure's built in for special form, and thusly reacted in a snarky manner.

But everyone should get an opportunity to see what you can do with things like macros, how useful list comprehensions are in general, and how a homoiconic language can make the simple things slightly less intuitive but the hard things vastly more tractable. I certainly have no business in detracting from your enjoyment of Clojure, so please don't allow me to.

Instead of being snarky may I offer some constructive criticism:

1) You don't mention the Clojure `for` special form, which is a built in list comprehension. 2) There's a significant amount baked into Clojure's `for` special form. How does it compare to your macro? After reviewing the macro again I think you'll find there's some differing behaviors over when members of seqs are realized and bound between your implementation and that in clojure.core. 3) I think reflecting on what the real power here is: that you are able to dictate the hows and whys of evaluation at what time, and discussing that matter, can make more salient the power of LISPs.

Please do continue to enjoy what you are building and what you learn, and don't let the jaded musings of crotchety old men like me get in your way!

Someone's very happy to have authored Clojure's for special form.

The person leading a team is (maybe) contributing, why are they magically not a resource and all the other members of the team are?

Girl Talk's been using an even more beneficent form of this model since day one, which means far before getting popular. Gregg Gillis has achieved enough success to be touring and making money. There's still a couple caveats though:

1) Girl Talk is remixing bits of other songs that people already know, thus there's familiarity. 2) Trying to go through any label and traditional distribution model very likely would not have succeeded anyway, so trying something different wasn't really a choice.

There are individuals who care more about fundamentally good ideas than about leveraging them for profit. We aren't sufficiently offended by profanity to consider it a net negative value in presentations.

This reminds me of http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/02/portrait-of-n00b.htm...

Google doesn't support IE6 (even if it may work on some of their site without directed effort). Your business makes less money than Google. Applying the transitive property we find...

If they have objective measures and are compensating based on them, there's no reason not to tell people what the formula is. You can still hide what you measure people at (Bob's only A+ at LINQ, vs. A+++). Without specifying how measurements translate into yearly compensation they're just waving their hands around and saying how scientific they are without actually being so.

Destroying BitCoin provides you lots of value if you have a vested interest in some thing that BitCoin threatens the value of.

The article neglects that people have to pay income taxes on however many dollars of income you make. If you hypothetically made 100% of your income in bitcoins, and conducted all your financial transactions in bitcoins, then you would have 0 tax liability and wouldn't need dollars to pay taxes.