4 ms·

Clojure’s maps, sets, and vectors are all functions.

hjek 8y ago
First public release of Arc came not long after Clojure. Clojure is definitely better thought out as a language, and while Arc has some interesting ideas around web development, it also doesn't have a module system, so everything is just loaded into the same global namespace, which is pretty insane.
- christianbryant 8y ago
  Keep in mind that Arc is the start of something with long-term goals; further, it's part of a lifecycle that didn't necessarily start with Arc but with the first Lisp. PG points to an early essay titled "The Hundred-Year Language" [1] as an indicator of where Arc is intended to go and some future outlooks that might inspire more evolution. I don't know that any programming language can be everything it needs to be from the outset, but it certainly needs inherent featured supporting longevity, a framework that supports change and evolution, while still having a pleasing and useful function that can be taken advantage of immediately. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html
stingraycharles 8y ago
It would be more correct to say that they can be coerced to a function with a special purposes (e.g. using a set as a function is an alias for checking whether an item exists). To say they are functions would be incorrect. By the same logic, a keyword is would be a function.
- jffry 8y ago
  They're callable as functions, i.e. they implement clojure.lang.IFn. So unless you want to shave hairs on what it means to say they're not "functions", they _are_ functions. Sets, vecs, maps, keywords, and IIRC symbols are all IFn Oh and (#{1 2} 3) is equivalent to (get #{1 2} 3) not (contains? #{1 2} 3)
  - stingraycharles 8y ago
    I think that it depends upon what you interpret it when you say “it’s a function”; it’s data as well. Which, now that I reconsider it, was kind of the point that the parent was trying to make, that they’re also very much unified. So point taken.
sctb 8y ago
Ah, that makes sense. The next main difference in my mind is ergonomic, but relies on this regularity: functional syntax for composition, negation, quoted application. There are also other syntax additions and in my experience they're well-chosen and go a long way.

hjek 8y ago

First public release of Arc came not long after Clojure. Clojure is definitely better thought out as a language, and while Arc has some interesting ideas around web development, it also doesn't have a module system, so everything is just loaded into the same global namespace, which is pretty insane.

christianbryant 8y ago
Keep in mind that Arc is the start of something with long-term goals; further, it's part of a lifecycle that didn't necessarily start with Arc but with the first Lisp. PG points to an early essay titled "The Hundred-Year Language" [1] as an indicator of where Arc is intended to go and some future outlooks that might inspire more evolution. I don't know that any programming language can be everything it needs to be from the outset, but it certainly needs inherent featured supporting longevity, a framework that supports change and evolution, while still having a pleasing and useful function that can be taken advantage of immediately. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html

stingraycharles 8y ago

It would be more correct to say that they can be coerced to a function with a special purposes (e.g. using a set as a function is an alias for checking whether an item exists). To say they are functions would be incorrect. By the same logic, a keyword is would be a function.

jffry 8y ago
They're callable as functions, i.e. they implement clojure.lang.IFn. So unless you want to shave hairs on what it means to say they're not "functions", they _are_ functions. Sets, vecs, maps, keywords, and IIRC symbols are all IFn Oh and (#{1 2} 3) is equivalent to (get #{1 2} 3) not (contains? #{1 2} 3)
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  I think that it depends upon what you interpret it when you say “it’s a function”; it’s data as well. Which, now that I reconsider it, was kind of the point that the parent was trying to make, that they’re also very much unified. So point taken.

sctb 8y ago

Ah, that makes sense. The next main difference in my mind is ergonomic, but relies on this regularity: functional syntax for composition, negation, quoted application. There are also other syntax additions and in my experience they're well-chosen and go a long way.