3 ms·

Clojure has a bunch of other syntactic structures not found in other lisps that makes it a lot more visually noisy. I'm very comfortable with Scheme and I can v

• iLemming 1y ago
  > not found in other lisps that makes it a lot more visually noisy I disagree. It only feels that way, until you learn how destructuring works in Clojure. Once you grok that, you'd understand why the vector syntax for function arguments was chosen, and not a simple list like in other Lisps. In general, Clojure is highly pragmatic - if something done certain way, most-likely it's for good reasons, and not by accident. Also, Clojure-maps are just freaking amazing. I wish others, e.g., Elisp had them. Clojure is extremely and nicely readable, just requires some getting used to it. At some point, I completely replaced my API-testing workflows, switching from JSON to EDN - it's almost twice more compact and much better visually, not to mention that it's incredibly nice to be able to just explore and visualize any given data through the REPL.
  • Zambyte 1y ago
    > It only feels that way, until you learn how destructuring works in Clojure Well... yes. The original comment was about how Clojure code looks very foreign. The reply to that was that Lisp code is not actually that foreign because it's just taking the common foo(bar baz) and making it (foo bar baz). My comment was that Clojure is more foreign to most programmers than other Lisps, because it's not simply mapping foo(bar baz) to (foo bar baz). Of course when you learn the things that make it unique, it becomes familiar.