4 ms·

No I'm sorry, I didn't explain it correctly then. I was commenting specifically on the data-types which can be mutated but only in a thread-safe/concurrent-safe

by lbj 8y ago

No I'm sorry, I didn't explain it correctly then. I was commenting specifically on the data-types which can be mutated but only in a thread-safe/concurrent-safe manner. Everything else, incl the entirety of the core language, is immutable and functional. You have to go out of your way to mutate. Its a functional Lisp tightly integrated with the JVM and compiles to both Java bytecode and Javascript. I think that makes it unique.

atombender 8y ago
So immutable, but side-effectful. As far as I can see, there's no effects system for I/O. For example, a function like print doesn't seem to return anything, if I understand the documentation correctly (which isn't easy, because it (e.g. [1]) seems to completely lack signatures, so the only way to tell is to look at the code!). For example, it seems that to print an array of lines to stdout, you use something like doseq, which is like a "for each" function that is side-effectful. This is how OCaml works, too. [1] https://clojure.github.io/clojure/clojure.core-api.html#clojure.core/print https://clojure.github.io/clojure/clojure.core-api.html#cloj...
- lbj 8y ago
  Almost correct. The signature is there, eg. > Usage: (print & more) '& more' means 'any number of arguments stuffed into a sequence called more' > (print [1 2 3]) "[1 2 3]" nil There are a number of ways to print an array of lines and doseq is one. Its designed for statements at have no return.
  - atombender 8y ago
    I saw that, but the signature has no types or no indication as to what the return value might be. If you look at the documentation for functions that do have return values, there's no signature either, just a fairly vague English description of what it returns. Dynamic duck-typing all the way, no type inference. Anyway, my point was, no effects system. There's no way to determine if something has side effects or prevent them. Very far from Haskell's purity. I wouldn't criticize Haskell for a "trick" that enables the impressive feat of maintaing purity with side effects (while at the same time maintaining strict enforcement of types throughout) when Clojure doesn't even have any kind of effects management.

by lbj 8y ago

atombender 8y ago

So immutable, but side-effectful. As far as I can see, there's no effects system for I/O. For example, a function like print doesn't seem to return anything, if I understand the documentation correctly (which isn't easy, because it (e.g. [1]) seems to completely lack signatures, so the only way to tell is to look at the code!). For example, it seems that to print an array of lines to stdout, you use something like doseq, which is like a "for each" function that is side-effectful. This is how OCaml works, too. [1] https://clojure.github.io/clojure/clojure.core-api.html#clojure.core/print https://clojure.github.io/clojure/clojure.core-api.html#cloj...

lbj 8y ago
Almost correct. The signature is there, eg. > Usage: (print & more) '& more' means 'any number of arguments stuffed into a sequence called more' > (print [1 2 3]) "[1 2 3]" nil There are a number of ways to print an array of lines and doseq is one. Its designed for statements at have no return.
- atombender 8y ago
  I saw that, but the signature has no types or no indication as to what the return value might be. If you look at the documentation for functions that do have return values, there's no signature either, just a fairly vague English description of what it returns. Dynamic duck-typing all the way, no type inference. Anyway, my point was, no effects system. There's no way to determine if something has side effects or prevent them. Very far from Haskell's purity. I wouldn't criticize Haskell for a "trick" that enables the impressive feat of maintaing purity with side effects (while at the same time maintaining strict enforcement of types throughout) when Clojure doesn't even have any kind of effects management.