4 ms·
The experience I had with it the last time i tried it was that it was syntactically very similar to Clojure, but certain subtle differences with it. Close but n
by billfruit 4y ago
The experience I had with it the last time i tried it was that it was syntactically very similar to Clojure, but certain subtle differences with it. Close but not being precisely same as something else could often result in confusions.
- Kodiologist 4y agoI've been trying to steer the syntax towards imitating Python more than Clojure, the idea being that you frequently need to rapidly switch between reading Python and Hy (as when you're writing a Hy program while consulting documentation for a Python library), so it helps to minimize friction there. Thus e.g. `True` must now be capitalized that way, Python-style; `true` used to be allowed as well. But whether a more Pythonesque Hy is more or less confusing than a more Clojuresque Hy is admittedly a matter of taste.
- m45t3r 4y agoI completely understand the decision and applaud the fact that Hy seems to be going of a direction of being a much finer layer than it was previously (removing things from Hy itself and moving to Hyrule, for example). On the other side I am quite torn about the decision. I quite liked the early releases of Hy where I could write a code that was much more familiar for me as a Clojure programmer. Still need to give a try to the new releases though.