3 ms·

Meanwhile Clojure makes obvious improvements over CL I would beg to differ. The features you note are pretty subjective and not obvious improvements at all. I'

Meanwhile Clojure makes obvious improvements over CL I would beg to differ. The features you note are pretty subjective and not obvious improvements at all. I've done a few small non-trivial prototypes in Clojure. I cannot stand the syntax for literals. Or the mangled hell that is the literal for lambda. At least CL lets you define your own reader macros -- something that Clojure cannot do (yet). These features you mention are not improvements over CL IMO.

aphyr 14y ago
Huh, I find the syntax for literals a breath of fresh air--but I also grew up in languages with rich data structure literals and find the {}, (), [], #"", #{} distinctions make it much easier for me to understand, at a glance, the shape of a structure. I also prefer the vector notation for arguments in (fn [arg1 arg2 & friends])--the brackets make it easier to recognize the argument boundaries, especially in one-liners. In general, Clojure code seems to have less nesting, which makes it easier for me to read and parse. You're honestly the first person I've heard express a dislike for the reader forms, so I thought it was universally liked. I think you're right: a lack of configurable reader macros is a problem. I'd also point to the lack of tail recursion (and consequent mucking about with (recur) and (trampoline) as a notable flaw in Clojure. Its error messages are pathologically malicious. On the other hand, I think Clojure's packaging environment, thanks to lein and clojars, is quite good. There also seems to be more consistency in Clojure coding... style? preference? than in CL, which I attribute partly to its young age and small user base, but also, perhaps, to a more opinionated set of attitudes around mutability and types. Regarding the #() form, I almost never reach for it, partly because it never seems to work as expected. (fn) and (partial) feel more natural to me, so I've never taken the time to understand how #() works. I also prefer Lisp-1s in general, although I understand that's a more contentious differentiation. Either way, my CL experience is minimal, so it was wrong of me to claim these as obvious improvements. I'll defer to your expertise here: it sounds like you've used CL enough to understand it better.

aphyr 14y ago

Huh, I find the syntax for literals a breath of fresh air--but I also grew up in languages with rich data structure literals and find the {}, (), [], #"", #{} distinctions make it much easier for me to understand, at a glance, the shape of a structure. I also prefer the vector notation for arguments in (fn [arg1 arg2 & friends])--the brackets make it easier to recognize the argument boundaries, especially in one-liners. In general, Clojure code seems to have less nesting, which makes it easier for me to read and parse. You're honestly the first person I've heard express a dislike for the reader forms, so I thought it was universally liked. I think you're right: a lack of configurable reader macros is a problem. I'd also point to the lack of tail recursion (and consequent mucking about with (recur) and (trampoline) as a notable flaw in Clojure. Its error messages are pathologically malicious. On the other hand, I think Clojure's packaging environment, thanks to lein and clojars, is quite good. There also seems to be more consistency in Clojure coding... style? preference? than in CL, which I attribute partly to its young age and small user base, but also, perhaps, to a more opinionated set of attitudes around mutability and types. Regarding the #() form, I almost never reach for it, partly because it never seems to work as expected. (fn) and (partial) feel more natural to me, so I've never taken the time to understand how #() works. I also prefer Lisp-1s in general, although I understand that's a more contentious differentiation. Either way, my CL experience is minimal, so it was wrong of me to claim these as obvious improvements. I'll defer to your expertise here: it sounds like you've used CL enough to understand it better.