4 ms·

And hence the productivity self-selection bias... I'd guess that, for you, Clojure _wouldn't_ have the same kind of efficiency that some others see. Lisp, in g

by mgsouth 13y ago

And hence the productivity self-selection bias... I'd guess that, for you, Clojure _wouldn't_ have the same kind of efficiency that some others see. Lisp, in general, appeals to people who think "A is really the same thing as B. Cool!" They see treating all functions the same as a really worthwhile thing, in and of itself. Others, such as yourself, aren't really excited by that. It's a style thing. Fanatical generalization can be a really effective trait in some circumstances. A small team of generalizers working on a reasonably-defined problem (such as a re-implementation) can turn out amazingly simple and compact code, since they tend to factor out common things. On the other hand, a generalizer might not be as tactically-focused as someone else. A tactical person might be more inclined to make a surgical change, whereas a generalizer might wind up with a "toolbox enhancement". A tactical person is going to get more mileage out of tools that already take care of a lot of common cases, and do them in common ways. A generalizer will do better with tools that are more "meta".

jroseattle 13y ago
All this from an assertion about the simplicity of Clojure syntax? Because this is just syntax, "A 'looks' the same as B. Cool!" is a more definitive statement. After all, it's just getting compiled/translated to JVM byte code anyway. Efficiency is an entirely different conversation and tangential to the one we've been having regarding syntax and simplicity. Nobody has asked to this point, but I have no problem with Clojure's syntax structure. I find it very compact, I like the explicitness of parentheses, and like that it works in the JVM. (Disclaimer: I've not deployed any Clojure-based code in a production environment, so my own experience is limited.) I also find that it's syntax has its own quirks, much like every other language. And while some things 'look' the same in Clojure, other things don't -- and that's perfectly ok. It's relatively consistent enough that the syntax logically points to its idioms. But I stand by my original comment: it's only as simple as the observer makes it out to be. I don't find the syntax of Clojure more or less simple than many other languages.

by mgsouth 13y ago

jroseattle 13y ago

All this from an assertion about the simplicity of Clojure syntax? Because this is just syntax, "A 'looks' the same as B. Cool!" is a more definitive statement. After all, it's just getting compiled/translated to JVM byte code anyway. Efficiency is an entirely different conversation and tangential to the one we've been having regarding syntax and simplicity. Nobody has asked to this point, but I have no problem with Clojure's syntax structure. I find it very compact, I like the explicitness of parentheses, and like that it works in the JVM. (Disclaimer: I've not deployed any Clojure-based code in a production environment, so my own experience is limited.) I also find that it's syntax has its own quirks, much like every other language. And while some things 'look' the same in Clojure, other things don't -- and that's perfectly ok. It's relatively consistent enough that the syntax logically points to its idioms. But I stand by my original comment: it's only as simple as the observer makes it out to be. I don't find the syntax of Clojure more or less simple than many other languages.