3 ms·
> sometimes I feel that it is not a true lisp. That feeling may be the result of some questionable syntactic design decisions in Clojure. Hickey went over Lis
by cronjobber 10y ago
> sometimes I feel that it is not a true lisp.
That feeling may be the result of some questionable syntactic design decisions in Clojure.
Hickey went over Lisp syntax and tried to remove parentheses wherever possible. (It was the hip thing, PG's Arc did it, too, which may be where Hickey got it from.) As a result, you get a sub-par editing experience —generic sexp-based structure editing doesn't get you as far as with a Lisp— and diminished readability once you get above three omitted pairs of parentheses in a row.
On the other hand, Clojure arbitrarily mandates a secondary kind of list literal in some places of the syntax, again making Clojure harder to write and edit. I don't even see a readability benefit, but of course YMMV.
TL;DR: Clojure syntax is a "complected" derivative of Lisp :-)
- edem 10y agoSo you seen that video? Great talk though.
- joe-user 10y ago> you get a sub-par editing experience [in Clojure] Paredit and vim-sexp have no problem doing structural editing. I don't use it myself, but Parinfer was created with Clojure in mind and people seem incredibly happy with it. > diminished readability [in Clojure] If you watched the talk that you lifted "complected" from, you'd know that this is subjective. Is German unreadable because I don't know German? > Clojure syntax is a "complected" derivative of Lisp :-) Complected in some ways sure, but far less so than many lisps, and certainly less so than Common Lisp. It seems your familiarity is complected with your reasoning.