4 ms·
> I actually find Clojure's syntax more confusing with all the punctuation they threw at it. Could you give some examples? Or "all the punctuation" you are ref
by fndex 3y ago
> I actually find Clojure's syntax more confusing with all the punctuation they threw at it.
Could you give some examples? Or "all the punctuation" you are referring just to []?
- Zambyte 3y agoI'm not the same person you asked, but I find Clojure to be as easy to read as Scheme, but harder to write, since I need to remember what punctuation to use where.
- capableweb 3y agoI don't know, it makes sense to use different data structures for different purposes. (), [], {} are all different data structures (lists, vectors and maps) that are useful in different situations, so makes sense to have shorthands for them.
- dreamcompiler 3y agoMaybe. What bothers me about this idea is that it doesn't scale: As soon as you need a fourth bracket type you're hosed, because there are no more on the keyboard. With Common Lisp, you can define [ and { if you want to, but it's more common to use a reader macro character in front of an opening paren or a function name after it if you want different data structures. Those approaches scale.