4 ms·

> homoiconicity... is simultaneously very prosaic and very deep That's what drives me on. That and Rich Hickey's enthusiasm and the sense that he knows somethi

> homoiconicity... is simultaneously very prosaic and very deep That's what drives me on. That and Rich Hickey's enthusiasm and the sense that he knows something really valuable that I don't. I watch a lot of videos as well, so I can't remember who said that programming languages were user interfaces between human and machine and are an attempt to talk to machines to get them to do things. In that sense, programming languages are a lot deeper than syntax convenience or efficiency. A good language allows us to talk to machine at a much higher level, and I get from functional programmers that this is what they find so attractive. I will contact you if I get really stuck and when I finally get it just to share it with someone. Thanks! edit: I've heard a lot about SICP but never looked into it. I think it's time, now that I have time

greggyb 5y ago
I'll recommend the videos from the 1980s and this version of the text, which is set nicely and has working footnotes. Videos: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/video-lectures/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-compu... Text: https://github.com/sarabander/sicp https://github.com/sarabander/sicp (links to epub and html versions at the top of the README)
- mwattsun 5y ago
  > I attempted SICP a few times I don't have a computer science degree and I think that has held me back some, but I try to overcome it by always trying to learn and never thinking I should already know something or feeling like I'm an expert. I don't have the patience at my age to go back to school and get a degree. That you attempted SICP a few times is a good sign that you don't give up and speaks to your success in finally understanding.
bcrosby95 5y ago
Homoiconicity is neat, but I think the real nice thing is the S-expressions and general lack of special keywords. It makes it easy to take a chunk of code in your source file and seamlessly send it to the REPL and have it work. Compared to Elixir (another language I like) - it is homoiconic but it doesn't have this feature. I can't, for example, take an arbitrary function definition and update or define it in the REPL - because all functions must be defined in a module. However, I like these modules because I think it helps enable discovery of functions - it's much easier to find all operations you can do on lists or maps in Elixir than Clojure. Also, I wouldn't necessarily call macros more powerful than functions. They're just different, and they enable different things. You cannot, for example, pass a macro around like you can a function. Personally I've never written them, but I use them every day because the core library defines macros. I view them as ways to let people smarter than me to give me tools I can use to write my programs. As far as driving you on, I don't think Clojure is the end-all be-all language. I happen to like it. I also like Elixir. I know people who really love other, more standard languages though. I don't think you need to force yourself to love or "get" Clojure, but playing around with it can expand your mind a bit, especially if you've never used an FP before. But if you want an FP that (IMHO) would be easier to transition to, Erlang was the first FP that I "got", afterwhich I tried Clojure again. The syntax is a lot more like traditional imperative programs which can ease the transition. Nowadays I would recommend Elixir over Erlang for several reasons: more modern with modern tooling, less syntax quirks, more active online community, lots of active development. For me, the main benefits of Clojure are (other FP languages have some of these too): 1. Sharable, immutable state as the default. 2. A set of higher order functions that can do all sorts of data transformation. 3. Being able to use the same language on the web in client + server (without having to use Javascript). 4. Clojure gives me the ability to, more than other languages I've used, target the level of abstraction that I need for the problem at hand, which removes a lot of cruft. 5. Lack of special syntax: helps enable REPL driven development, makes it easier to seamlessly adopt new features from other languages. 6. It's hosted on two ecosystems I'm very familiar with - Java and Javascript.

greggyb 5y ago

I'll recommend the videos from the 1980s and this version of the text, which is set nicely and has working footnotes. Videos: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/video-lectures/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-compu... Text: https://github.com/sarabander/sicp https://github.com/sarabander/sicp (links to epub and html versions at the top of the README)

mwattsun 5y ago
> I attempted SICP a few times I don't have a computer science degree and I think that has held me back some, but I try to overcome it by always trying to learn and never thinking I should already know something or feeling like I'm an expert. I don't have the patience at my age to go back to school and get a degree. That you attempted SICP a few times is a good sign that you don't give up and speaks to your success in finally understanding.

bcrosby95 5y ago

Homoiconicity is neat, but I think the real nice thing is the S-expressions and general lack of special keywords. It makes it easy to take a chunk of code in your source file and seamlessly send it to the REPL and have it work. Compared to Elixir (another language I like) - it is homoiconic but it doesn't have this feature. I can't, for example, take an arbitrary function definition and update or define it in the REPL - because all functions must be defined in a module. However, I like these modules because I think it helps enable discovery of functions - it's much easier to find all operations you can do on lists or maps in Elixir than Clojure. Also, I wouldn't necessarily call macros more powerful than functions. They're just different, and they enable different things. You cannot, for example, pass a macro around like you can a function. Personally I've never written them, but I use them every day because the core library defines macros. I view them as ways to let people smarter than me to give me tools I can use to write my programs. As far as driving you on, I don't think Clojure is the end-all be-all language. I happen to like it. I also like Elixir. I know people who really love other, more standard languages though. I don't think you need to force yourself to love or "get" Clojure, but playing around with it can expand your mind a bit, especially if you've never used an FP before. But if you want an FP that (IMHO) would be easier to transition to, Erlang was the first FP that I "got", afterwhich I tried Clojure again. The syntax is a lot more like traditional imperative programs which can ease the transition. Nowadays I would recommend Elixir over Erlang for several reasons: more modern with modern tooling, less syntax quirks, more active online community, lots of active development. For me, the main benefits of Clojure are (other FP languages have some of these too): 1. Sharable, immutable state as the default. 2. A set of higher order functions that can do all sorts of data transformation. 3. Being able to use the same language on the web in client + server (without having to use Javascript). 4. Clojure gives me the ability to, more than other languages I've used, target the level of abstraction that I need for the problem at hand, which removes a lot of cruft. 5. Lack of special syntax: helps enable REPL driven development, makes it easier to seamlessly adopt new features from other languages. 6. It's hosted on two ecosystems I'm very familiar with - Java and Javascript.