6 ms·

Clojure is a lisp.

• davexunit 11y ago
  I think what lispm is getting at is that there a large number of Clojure programmers that do not realize that Clojure's features and the workflows it enables have been around for decades.
  • j-pb 11y ago
    Fair enough, I guess the article is aimed mostly at newbies to clojure though, which mostly come from a non-lisp background.
    • lispm 11y ago
      That style of interactive exploratory programming is supported by a gazillion of languages and implementations. There is nothing Clojure specific about it. From the early Lisp to most other forms of Lisp-derived languages (like Logo, Dylan, ...), over APL, Mathematica, up to Apple's Swift...
      • j-pb 11y ago
        Neither is the article nor I arguing that in any way. It is a case study of developing a clojure program in the repl, done to inspire newcomers, not a scientific article claiming clojure invented the repl.
        • lispm 11y ago
          It explicitly mentions clojure, functional programming and a repl to enable this. None of that is necessary. One can nicely use Smalltalk (recent version: Pharo), its object-oriented programming and its interactive IDE for that.
          • j-pb 11y ago
            Just because it mentions it doesn't means it claims it's necessary. The author states " If you're new to Clojure, or functional programming, or languages that have a REPL, I hope this encourages you to crack open a REPL and start to think about your own story. It's a means to whatever end you have in mind. " and even points to a super general google search. https://www.google.de/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=repl+driven+development&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=kXBfVou2I_KA8QfB2YHYBw https://www.google.de/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=repl+dri... Did you actually read the thing, or just open it close it and decide to hat it because it not CL?
            • lispm 11y ago
              > Did you actually read the thing, or just open it close it and decide to hat it because it not CL? The author could benefit from some of the better REPLs of Common Lisp - which for example nicely integrate various tools (inspectors, debuggers, error handling, object-oriented programming, ...) to better support interactive/exploratory programming.
• lispm 11y ago
  Can it run Lisp code?
  • j-pb 11y ago
    Which lisp?
    • junke 11y ago
      The one that was painfully standardized to avoid this kind of question? "The Lisp family of languages" vs "Lisp" is an old discussion: see http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.fr/2013/01/common-lisp-is-just-lisp.html http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.fr/2013/01/common-lisp-is-just... for a summary.
      • j-pb 11y ago
        Ah so scheme then. Fair enough, scheme is probably the most worthy of the title. It's both true to McCarthys mathmatical spirit, and he himself stated that Steele is probably the closest thing to a benevolent dictator in the lisp world.
        • lispm 11y ago
          Steele hasn't edited the Scheme standard since two or three decades. Ever wondered why Scheme is called Scheme and not LexicalLisp? It's a new language, with it's own dialects, standards, libraries, implementations, communities, ... Lately Steele worked on languages like Java and Fortress. Nothing with Lisp...
          • j-pb 11y ago
            Yeah why would he. We don't revise lambda calculus every year.
            • lispm 11y ago
              Yet, Scheme has seen many standard revisions. Without Steele editing it. The Scheme standard has been edited by others, not Steele. Since three decades. From R2RS in 1985 up to R7RS in 2013.