3 ms·

I really don't get this hype about lisp-like languages. I think Scheme is the only language who is more or less acceptable for such a role. Others (including C

by exim 14y ago

I really don't get this hype about lisp-like languages. I think Scheme is the only language who is more or less acceptable for such a role. Others (including Common Lisp) are just too complex for writing in them ASTs (yes, S-expression is AST...).

exim 14y ago
Wow, downvotes were faster than bullet. Care to elaborate?
- Jach 14y ago
  The likely cause here is a double-whammy of complaining about downvotes in a child comment, and a form of "what is posited without evidence can be rejected without evidence" that maps to downvoting comments without elaboration. What exactly makes you think the way you think regarding Common Lisp vs. Scheme vs. Clojure? What's a crowning example of Scheme's superiority over at http://hyperpolyglot.org/lisp http://hyperpolyglot.org/lisp ? Have you even read about what makes Clojure different from CL or Scheme so that you have an informed opinion? Not a bad place to start would be the official website, or perhaps the long article here: http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html
  - exim 14y ago
    Yes, I know what differentiates Clojure from CL (or Scheme). What I'm saying is that it is possible to have most part of these goodies in non S-expr language. Except maybe homoiconicity and advanced macros (Although being S-expr is not required for homoiconicity (e.g. Prolog)).
- xaa 14y ago
  Well, your second statement was not really accurate or even really coherent. CL and Clojure both have relatively simple syntax compared to most mainstream languages because of their use of S-expressions. Although reader macros mean they aren't purely S-expressions. But the main reason that you're being downvoted is because this site tends to attract Lisp aficionados. Paul Graham is well-known for claiming that Lisp is better than all other languages: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
espeed 14y ago
Clojure is a functional Lisp with immutable, persistent data structures. This simplifies concurrency programming, which is becoming increasingly important in a multi-core world. For the "Why?" of Clojure, see Rich Hickey's talk, "Simple Made Easy" (http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy). As for the downvotes, content-free comments are typically downvoted. Also realize this site is written in a Lisp (http://arclanguage.org http://arclanguage.org) created by Paul Graham (http://paulgraham.com/arc.html http://paulgraham.com/arc.html).
jhuni 14y ago
> I really don't get this hype about lisp-like languages. Well for one thing some of us having been using Lisp for a very, very long time. I have personally been using it for years so it seems like the most natural thing to me at this point. That is the historical element to Lisp. Of course, there are also practical advantages. The lisp-like languages are effectively the only class of languages available today that allow you to effective escape from text-based programming and use certain advanced techniques that are necessary for symbolic AI. > Others (including Common Lisp) are just too complex for writing in them ASTs (yes, S-expression is AST...). This part of your comment leaves much to be desired. How is Common Lisp complex and exactly what other languages share this feature? What does this have to do with "writing them ASTs"? Finally, please explain why you equate S-expressions with ASTs.

by exim 14y ago

exim 14y ago

Wow, downvotes were faster than bullet. Care to elaborate?

Jach 14y ago
The likely cause here is a double-whammy of complaining about downvotes in a child comment, and a form of "what is posited without evidence can be rejected without evidence" that maps to downvoting comments without elaboration. What exactly makes you think the way you think regarding Common Lisp vs. Scheme vs. Clojure? What's a crowning example of Scheme's superiority over at http://hyperpolyglot.org/lisp http://hyperpolyglot.org/lisp ? Have you even read about what makes Clojure different from CL or Scheme so that you have an informed opinion? Not a bad place to start would be the official website, or perhaps the long article here: http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html
- exim 14y ago
  Yes, I know what differentiates Clojure from CL (or Scheme). What I'm saying is that it is possible to have most part of these goodies in non S-expr language. Except maybe homoiconicity and advanced macros (Although being S-expr is not required for homoiconicity (e.g. Prolog)).
xaa 14y ago
Well, your second statement was not really accurate or even really coherent. CL and Clojure both have relatively simple syntax compared to most mainstream languages because of their use of S-expressions. Although reader macros mean they aren't purely S-expressions. But the main reason that you're being downvoted is because this site tends to attract Lisp aficionados. Paul Graham is well-known for claiming that Lisp is better than all other languages: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

espeed 14y ago

Clojure is a functional Lisp with immutable, persistent data structures. This simplifies concurrency programming, which is becoming increasingly important in a multi-core world. For the "Why?" of Clojure, see Rich Hickey's talk, "Simple Made Easy" (http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy). As for the downvotes, content-free comments are typically downvoted. Also realize this site is written in a Lisp (http://arclanguage.org http://arclanguage.org) created by Paul Graham (http://paulgraham.com/arc.html http://paulgraham.com/arc.html).

jhuni 14y ago

> I really don't get this hype about lisp-like languages. Well for one thing some of us having been using Lisp for a very, very long time. I have personally been using it for years so it seems like the most natural thing to me at this point. That is the historical element to Lisp. Of course, there are also practical advantages. The lisp-like languages are effectively the only class of languages available today that allow you to effective escape from text-based programming and use certain advanced techniques that are necessary for symbolic AI. > Others (including Common Lisp) are just too complex for writing in them ASTs (yes, S-expression is AST...). This part of your comment leaves much to be desired. How is Common Lisp complex and exactly what other languages share this feature? What does this have to do with "writing them ASTs"? Finally, please explain why you equate S-expressions with ASTs.