3 ms·
Why not just use common lisp instead? Has Clojure innovated that much over current common lisp capabilities? Porting existing Clojure code probably isn't a mot
by marcrosoft 8y ago
Why not just use common lisp instead? Has Clojure innovated that much over current common lisp capabilities?
Porting existing Clojure code probably isn't a motivation since much of it probably relies on Java libraries.
- nickik 8y agoWhile a lot relies on Java, Clojure also has ClojureScript. And a lot of work as gone into making .cljc files work for both of them. There are large numbers of library who are designed to work for both and it would not be hard to make many of them work on Common Lisp. However, I do agree, I'm not sure if this is actually useful.
- zem 8y agoit's a different programming experience; e.g. as a matter of taste i prefer lisp-1 to lisp-2, and then clojure has added some nice stuff around collections and immutability and some pleasant syntax. it would be nice for people who like all that to also take advantage of common lisp's excellent backends.
- hellofunk 8y agoThere is a huge difference in the Clojure experience vs. CL. They might both be lisps, but there is where the similarity ends. The paradigms are often quite different in working between them. Clojure is an immutable-first, and concurrency as a first-class citizen, approach to programming.