5 ms·

Well, the same happened to LISP languages. They never seem to get a lot of traction... until Clojure appeared.

by dysoco 14y ago

jerf 14y ago
I think that's part of what PommeDeTerre is asking; is there any oxygen left over for a JVM Scheme variant in a world with Scala and Clojure? (And an already-existing line of other languages trailing behind them.) If this were just some other open source project, I'd say go nuts, but we've got a guy here who presumably could get a very good job volunteering to live on raman for 4-6 months to do this thing, so I think this question needs to be considered, even if the answer is ultimately "yes".
- deltasquared 14y ago
  The reason you don't see many implementations of Scheme is that Java's calling conventions do not jive well with tail call optimization. This is the same reason that Clojure has the recur keyword: http://clojure.org/special_forms#Special http://clojure.org/special_forms#Special Forms--(recur exprs*)
  - amalter 14y ago
    See also Scala's compiler, which detects and re-writes tail calls as stackless iterations (http://oldfashionedsoftware.com/2008/09/27/tail-recursion-basics-in-scala/ http://oldfashionedsoftware.com/2008/09/27/tail-recursion-ba...)
yarrel 14y ago
The Smalltalk equivalent of Clojure is Ruby.
- endlessvoid94 14y ago
  Could you elaborate on how you see Ruby as a modern Smalltalk?
  - cbsmith 14y ago
    Seriously? Ruby block syntax is straight up lifted from Smalltalk, not to mention much of the semantics and standard library. Ruby seems like what Smalltalk would be if it was built as a scripting language with file-based structure... and then dragged through the mud of Perl syntax. ;-)
    - endlessvoid94 14y ago
      No need to be condescending, I was genuinely curious. At first glance, the two languages seem similar, but not as much as Clojure is to CL (or any other lisp).
      - rubinelli 14y ago
        It's hard to detect if a terse question is a request for information or a challenge. Back to the subject, Ruby's OO is much closer to Smalltalk's vision. Method dispatching in Java is essentially dereferencing a function pointer (found by traversing a class hierarchy) and adding a hidden argument (self.) In Ruby, you can override an object's method dispatching mechanism to be whatever you want it to be (although the default behavior is very similar to Java's.) This makes it a lot harder to optimize, (your JIT compiler can't simply inline those calls) but it opens all kinds of interesting meta-programming possibilities.
        spooneybarger 14y ago
        For anyone interested in the general topic of implementing a dynamic language on the jvm, Charles Nutter has a ton of good material around invoke dynamic and jruby.
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        As a CL developer with only a bit of dabbling in Smalltalk and Ruby, Smalltalk and Ruby seem much more similar than CL and Clojure. In particular, Clojure's preference for vectors over lists in many situations, combined with its much stronger preference for immutable objects makes it highly distinct from CL. The requirement for explicit trampolines to allow efficient tail-calls makes it distinct from any (non-toy) lisp I've ever used.
cbsmith 14y ago
Also I hear that JavaScript thing is catching on...
- nicksergeant 14y ago
  JavaScript is Lisp now?
  - zackzackzack 14y ago
    It's pretty damn close. First class functions give javascript great power. Combined with something like sweet.js and underscore, and javascript becomes a language with the functional library of a lisp along with macros. After that, javascript is just lisp with really weird syntax.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      Not to be snarky, but that's like saying 'Javascript is just a Lisp except without the only characteristic that defines a Lisp'. All the dialects of Lisp differ except in their homoiconicity, which is the one thing that gives Lisps their incredible expressive power. I get frustrated when I hear people refer to languages with first-class functions as Lisp-like, because lots of languages have first-class functions, but that doesn't give them the power of Lisp - Lisp draws its power from homoiconic structure, which almost no other languages have (certainly not Javascript).
      - zackzackzack 14y ago
        Most of my comment comes from the fact that Eich originally wanted to build a homoiconic lisp for netscape and built many of the features into javascript instead. Still no a lisp ,but it was designed to be similar. http://www.2ality.com/2011/03/javascript-how-it-all-began.html http://www.2ality.com/2011/03/javascript-how-it-all-began.ht...
  - bgarbiak 14y ago
    Crockford called it "Lisp in C's Clothing" and then created this: http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html
reinhardt 14y ago
Wondering when the "Clojure has a big traction" meme will die already, or at least be qualified with "in HN discussions". I give it a year.

Well, the same happened to LISP languages. They never seem to get a lot of traction... until Clojure appeared.

by dysoco 14y ago

Well, the same happened to LISP languages. They never seem to get a lot of traction... until Clojure appeared.

jerf 14y ago

I think that's part of what PommeDeTerre is asking; is there any oxygen left over for a JVM Scheme variant in a world with Scala and Clojure? (And an already-existing line of other languages trailing behind them.) If this were just some other open source project, I'd say go nuts, but we've got a guy here who presumably could get a very good job volunteering to live on raman for 4-6 months to do this thing, so I think this question needs to be considered, even if the answer is ultimately "yes".

deltasquared 14y ago
The reason you don't see many implementations of Scheme is that Java's calling conventions do not jive well with tail call optimization. This is the same reason that Clojure has the recur keyword: http://clojure.org/special_forms#Special http://clojure.org/special_forms#Special Forms--(recur exprs*)
- amalter 14y ago
  See also Scala's compiler, which detects and re-writes tail calls as stackless iterations (http://oldfashionedsoftware.com/2008/09/27/tail-recursion-basics-in-scala/ http://oldfashionedsoftware.com/2008/09/27/tail-recursion-ba...)

yarrel 14y ago

The Smalltalk equivalent of Clojure is Ruby.

endlessvoid94 14y ago
Could you elaborate on how you see Ruby as a modern Smalltalk?
- cbsmith 14y ago
  Seriously? Ruby block syntax is straight up lifted from Smalltalk, not to mention much of the semantics and standard library. Ruby seems like what Smalltalk would be if it was built as a scripting language with file-based structure... and then dragged through the mud of Perl syntax. ;-)
  - endlessvoid94 14y ago
    No need to be condescending, I was genuinely curious. At first glance, the two languages seem similar, but not as much as Clojure is to CL (or any other lisp).
    - rubinelli 14y ago
      It's hard to detect if a terse question is a request for information or a challenge. Back to the subject, Ruby's OO is much closer to Smalltalk's vision. Method dispatching in Java is essentially dereferencing a function pointer (found by traversing a class hierarchy) and adding a hidden argument (self.) In Ruby, you can override an object's method dispatching mechanism to be whatever you want it to be (although the default behavior is very similar to Java's.) This makes it a lot harder to optimize, (your JIT compiler can't simply inline those calls) but it opens all kinds of interesting meta-programming possibilities.
      - spooneybarger 14y ago
        For anyone interested in the general topic of implementing a dynamic language on the jvm, Charles Nutter has a ton of good material around invoke dynamic and jruby.
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      As a CL developer with only a bit of dabbling in Smalltalk and Ruby, Smalltalk and Ruby seem much more similar than CL and Clojure. In particular, Clojure's preference for vectors over lists in many situations, combined with its much stronger preference for immutable objects makes it highly distinct from CL. The requirement for explicit trampolines to allow efficient tail-calls makes it distinct from any (non-toy) lisp I've ever used.

cbsmith 14y ago

Also I hear that JavaScript thing is catching on...

nicksergeant 14y ago
JavaScript is Lisp now?
- zackzackzack 14y ago
  It's pretty damn close. First class functions give javascript great power. Combined with something like sweet.js and underscore, and javascript becomes a language with the functional library of a lisp along with macros. After that, javascript is just lisp with really weird syntax.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    Not to be snarky, but that's like saying 'Javascript is just a Lisp except without the only characteristic that defines a Lisp'. All the dialects of Lisp differ except in their homoiconicity, which is the one thing that gives Lisps their incredible expressive power. I get frustrated when I hear people refer to languages with first-class functions as Lisp-like, because lots of languages have first-class functions, but that doesn't give them the power of Lisp - Lisp draws its power from homoiconic structure, which almost no other languages have (certainly not Javascript).
    - zackzackzack 14y ago
      Most of my comment comes from the fact that Eich originally wanted to build a homoiconic lisp for netscape and built many of the features into javascript instead. Still no a lisp ,but it was designed to be similar. http://www.2ality.com/2011/03/javascript-how-it-all-began.html http://www.2ality.com/2011/03/javascript-how-it-all-began.ht...
- bgarbiak 14y ago
  Crockford called it "Lisp in C's Clothing" and then created this: http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html

reinhardt 14y ago

Wondering when the "Clojure has a big traction" meme will die already, or at least be qualified with "in HN discussions". I give it a year.