This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2023-04-16
Channels
- # babashka (17)
- # calva (35)
- # clerk (31)
- # cljs-dev (3)
- # clojars (1)
- # clojure (16)
- # clojure-europe (4)
- # clojurescript (38)
- # clojutre (2)
- # cursive (8)
- # datomic (16)
- # exercism (5)
- # fulcro (5)
- # gratitude (3)
- # hyperfiddle (55)
- # joyride (1)
- # lsp (40)
- # off-topic (6)
- # portal (64)
- # practicalli (1)
- # reitit (3)
- # releases (1)
- # shadow-cljs (38)
- # sql (1)
- # tools-deps (8)
- # xtdb (9)
I'm in the process of improving the Exercism Clojure syllabus, and I'm trying to figure out what to do with the "lists" exercise... details in thread
this is the exercise https://exercism.org/tracks/clojure/exercises/tracks-on-tracks-on-tracks
It was the first concept exercise someone made for the syllabus, but it's not very good at all. So I might just scrap it and create a new exercise for lists.
There was a thread here awhile back that highlights this https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C053AK3F9/p1668392191668169 unfortunately I didn't see it at the time. I should start spending more time here 😂
Some great bits of feedback in there: > Maybe it is an exercise designed for another language that translates poorly to Clojure. The irony: The exercise was written for Clojure. . . . > it leaves out a huge, unstated requirement: how to combine the results of two or more functions. https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C053AK3F9/p1668428636881079?thread_ts=1668392191.668169&cid=C053AK3F9 > this is very poorly written for Clojure; though not for the reason I thought it was. . . https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C053AK3F9/p1668435295687029?thread_ts=1668392191.668169&cid=C053AK3F9 . . . > The problem is it tries to confuse the reader by making you think you need to "write" functions to do a thing, when all the things are already done by core functions.