3 ms·
Why not Racket? It has a similar emphasis on immutable, functional programming, it's also a Lisp-1 (I assume that's what you mean by "syntax for function parame
by kbp 9y ago
Why not Racket? It has a similar emphasis on immutable, functional programming, it's also a Lisp-1 (I assume that's what you mean by "syntax for function parameters"), and the different syntax for data-structure literals I have to imagine is a pretty minor point.
- mclehman 9y agoI think they meant that function parameters are vectors when defining a function: (defn foo [arg1 arg2 & rest] ...) As for data-structure literals, it's nice to be able to write [1 2 3] vs (vec '(1 2 3)) {:key1 "val1", :key2 "val2"} vs (hash-map :key1 "val1" :key2 "val2") Agreed, all pretty minor points, but all nice to have. Function arguments are easily distinguishable and creating maps/vectors is simplified.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]