I think that might be a mistake in strategy. If what you posit is true, that means they're going to have to re-invent their way of talking about the interface and usage for each language, though probably they would start to settle their terminology on the third or fourth reinvention. If this is so, that means they're actually wasting energy now in tying the app story to Clojure concepts.
This is true. The story might break with ruby or JS, and no doubt the abstractions and assumptions of the behavior of how the programming language works will break the minute you go to a different execution model.
Comments
I think that might be a mistake in strategy. If what you posit is true, that means they're going to have to re-invent their way of talking about the interface and usage for each language, though probably they would start to settle their terminology on the third or fourth reinvention. If this is so, that means they're actually wasting energy now in tying the app story to Clojure concepts.
This is true. The story might break with ruby or JS, and no doubt the abstractions and assumptions of the behavior of how the programming language works will break the minute you go to a different execution model.
It's a tightrope, for sure, and it can be hard to see when you're in the middle of it.