6 ms·

Isn't Clojure the literal "Lisp for the modern day(a.k.a JVM)"? I hope I don't get kicked out of HN altogether for this comment :)

c_crank 3y ago
Clojure is opinionated against using all the potential features of Lisp.
- masijo 3y ago
  What would be those potential features of Lisp that Clojure is missing?
  - c_crank 3y ago
    Multi paradigm support, low level / C interop capacity, really any sort of native features
    - waffletower 3y ago
      Clojure is a multi-hosted language. Clean native interop would be nice to have I agree though.
  - fulafel 3y ago
    It steers you pretty heavily toward functional programming.
- waffletower 3y ago
  That is fair, though not a negative for many. Clojure prefers immutable data structures and functional constructs. Rich Hickey even wishes that he added fewer OOP constructs in the language (such as structs) and leaned more heavily on Clojure rooted functional concepts like 'transducers' which came later in the life of the language.
mejutoco 3y ago
IMHO Common Lisp is the modern one. Using the JVM is nice for certain uses, and clojure is a fine language, but going bare metal from higher abstractions is some power of Lisp that we should not give up. Same with macros and code generation. Luckily all of them can coexist, so we do not need to choose.
- criddell 3y ago
  How is code generation handled on modern operating systems and CPUs? Isn't there normally a strict separation between code and data to prevent exploits?
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > How is code generation handled on modern operating systems and CPUs? Isn't there normally a strict separation between code and data to prevent exploits? You compile code, which is text (data), all the time, don’t you?
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      The difference is that the output of the compiler is usually not loaded into the same process that did the compiling. That is not the case for applications that are developed On Lisp™.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        True. Well, since it works on the latest CPUs and OS's, presumably it isn't verboten.
  - p_l 3y ago
    At worst you have to ensure that you separate what needs to be writeable from executable, and then flip mappings RW->RX when generating new code, just like other JIT compilers do.
    - 3y ago
wildermuthn 3y ago
Unfortunately, IMHO Clojure’s maintainers hold an iron grip on the language and actively limit the growth of an ecosystem around it. See “Open Source is not about you”. It’s too bad, because itself is really terrific.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  To their right, Rich Hickey almost got bankrupted while developing Clojure. The usual "expect all for free, give nothing back" attitude.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    Rich Hickey basically wrote this in response to one of the notable and respected contributors of his ecosystem. If Rich wanted open source to be nothing more than a license and delivery mechanism then he shouldn’t have accepted volunteers. But a language without an ecosystem of volunteers is a dead language.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Many languages do quite well as commercial products.
    - erichocean 3y ago
      Clojure "the language" is certainly ossified, but Clojure "the ecosystem" is doing very, very well.
      - nocman 3y ago
        I'm genuinely curious. What about the language do you feel is "ossified"? I am interpreting that as being a negative description. Stability is extremely valuable. A lack of change to the core language over extended periods of time can be a very good thing, especially if certain changes would break existing code. Rich has made it clear that he is indeed targeting this kind of stability. Again, I would be very interested to hear what specific changes you think need to be made to 'Clojure "the language"'.
systems 3y ago
the problem with clojure is you have to learn java (or at least some java) same issue i see with F#, you still need to have at least some basic knowledge of C# unfortunately running on JVM actually really means running on Java same for .net it mean running on C# i dont mind learning two languages, its expected from most developers to know more than one, but context switching in a single function between two language is not fun
- pjmlp 3y ago
  The curse of guest languages. However F# suffers from a bigger issue, that clojure doesn't, belonging to the platform owner, that behaves as if it was an error to make it part of VS 2010.
  - jeremyjh 3y ago
    Isn't that because F# failed to win any significant market share? I think F#'s problem is that C# is too good and this was true even in 2010, its not like Scala vs. Java in 2010.
    - systems 3y ago
      F# is way nicer than C# (and Clojure is still way nicer than Java) And I dont think F# failed, I just think it needs to find a way to hide C# and OOP better But the language is doing fairly well, tons of educational resources, tons of videos on youtube , several nice projects on github, solid vs code mode, it is part of .net , but still a lot can be improved, and microsoft is far from abandoning, C# is one of MS flagship products , F# is not a flagship product And I also think that Don Syme is a lot more active working for F# and promoting it, than Rich Hickey is currently working for Clojure
      - soulbadguy 3y ago
        Big F# fan here, but i don't really "doing fairly well" is a fair assessment of the F# ecosystem right now. > microsoft is far from abandoning Might has well. When you look at the resources actually being deployed for F#, it's clear that MSFT either don't care or don't really have plan for F#. Most of the work is done by the community. The number of actual paid/full time MSFT dev on F# is very limited. The tooling is extremely limited, there is no official F# libraries for pretty much any MSFT and azure services (have to relie on C# libs.) In leetcode where the have C# (so already have the infra to run .net stuff, and language like elixir and racket (so they do have more niche language), they still don't have F#. The salvation for F# would come from finding a killer app, something akin to pytorch/numbpy or rails.

c_crank 3y ago

Clojure is opinionated against using all the potential features of Lisp.

masijo 3y ago
What would be those potential features of Lisp that Clojure is missing?
- c_crank 3y ago
  Multi paradigm support, low level / C interop capacity, really any sort of native features
  - waffletower 3y ago
    Clojure is a multi-hosted language. Clean native interop would be nice to have I agree though.
- fulafel 3y ago
  It steers you pretty heavily toward functional programming.
waffletower 3y ago
That is fair, though not a negative for many. Clojure prefers immutable data structures and functional constructs. Rich Hickey even wishes that he added fewer OOP constructs in the language (such as structs) and leaned more heavily on Clojure rooted functional concepts like 'transducers' which came later in the life of the language.

mejutoco 3y ago

IMHO Common Lisp is the modern one. Using the JVM is nice for certain uses, and clojure is a fine language, but going bare metal from higher abstractions is some power of Lisp that we should not give up. Same with macros and code generation. Luckily all of them can coexist, so we do not need to choose.

criddell 3y ago
How is code generation handled on modern operating systems and CPUs? Isn't there normally a strict separation between code and data to prevent exploits?
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > How is code generation handled on modern operating systems and CPUs? Isn't there normally a strict separation between code and data to prevent exploits? You compile code, which is text (data), all the time, don’t you?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    The difference is that the output of the compiler is usually not loaded into the same process that did the compiling. That is not the case for applications that are developed On Lisp™.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      True. Well, since it works on the latest CPUs and OS's, presumably it isn't verboten.
- p_l 3y ago
  At worst you have to ensure that you separate what needs to be writeable from executable, and then flip mappings RW->RX when generating new code, just like other JIT compilers do.
  - 3y ago

wildermuthn 3y ago

Unfortunately, IMHO Clojure’s maintainers hold an iron grip on the language and actively limit the growth of an ecosystem around it. See “Open Source is not about you”. It’s too bad, because itself is really terrific.

pjmlp 3y ago
To their right, Rich Hickey almost got bankrupted while developing Clojure. The usual "expect all for free, give nothing back" attitude.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  Rich Hickey basically wrote this in response to one of the notable and respected contributors of his ecosystem. If Rich wanted open source to be nothing more than a license and delivery mechanism then he shouldn’t have accepted volunteers. But a language without an ecosystem of volunteers is a dead language.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Many languages do quite well as commercial products.
  - erichocean 3y ago
    Clojure "the language" is certainly ossified, but Clojure "the ecosystem" is doing very, very well.
    - nocman 3y ago
      I'm genuinely curious. What about the language do you feel is "ossified"? I am interpreting that as being a negative description. Stability is extremely valuable. A lack of change to the core language over extended periods of time can be a very good thing, especially if certain changes would break existing code. Rich has made it clear that he is indeed targeting this kind of stability. Again, I would be very interested to hear what specific changes you think need to be made to 'Clojure "the language"'.

systems 3y ago

the problem with clojure is you have to learn java (or at least some java) same issue i see with F#, you still need to have at least some basic knowledge of C# unfortunately running on JVM actually really means running on Java same for .net it mean running on C# i dont mind learning two languages, its expected from most developers to know more than one, but context switching in a single function between two language is not fun

pjmlp 3y ago
The curse of guest languages. However F# suffers from a bigger issue, that clojure doesn't, belonging to the platform owner, that behaves as if it was an error to make it part of VS 2010.
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  Isn't that because F# failed to win any significant market share? I think F#'s problem is that C# is too good and this was true even in 2010, its not like Scala vs. Java in 2010.
  - systems 3y ago
    F# is way nicer than C# (and Clojure is still way nicer than Java) And I dont think F# failed, I just think it needs to find a way to hide C# and OOP better But the language is doing fairly well, tons of educational resources, tons of videos on youtube , several nice projects on github, solid vs code mode, it is part of .net , but still a lot can be improved, and microsoft is far from abandoning, C# is one of MS flagship products , F# is not a flagship product And I also think that Don Syme is a lot more active working for F# and promoting it, than Rich Hickey is currently working for Clojure
    - soulbadguy 3y ago
      Big F# fan here, but i don't really "doing fairly well" is a fair assessment of the F# ecosystem right now. > microsoft is far from abandoning Might has well. When you look at the resources actually being deployed for F#, it's clear that MSFT either don't care or don't really have plan for F#. Most of the work is done by the community. The number of actual paid/full time MSFT dev on F# is very limited. The tooling is extremely limited, there is no official F# libraries for pretty much any MSFT and azure services (have to relie on C# libs.) In leetcode where the have C# (so already have the infra to run .net stuff, and language like elixir and racket (so they do have more niche language), they still don't have F#. The salvation for F# would come from finding a killer app, something akin to pytorch/numbpy or rails.