4 ms·
Yep. Cool stuff indeed. I did the traditional "write a LISP interpreter in ML" and I found some great things in ML. However nothing about LISP made me happy. It
by chisleu 12y ago
Yep. Cool stuff indeed. I did the traditional "write a LISP interpreter in ML" and I found some great things in ML. However nothing about LISP made me happy. It seemed like a cumbersome pain. I have never used Clojure before. I'll check it out. I still don't think it will be awesome enough to make me really learn it over Erlang.
Sad to see my comment down voted. It was mostly a joke.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
- fnordsensei 12y agoNot by me, I'm too weak to downvote anything. I used Common Lisp during University, and mostly found it to be in my way. Although I might not have been a good enough programmer by then, to be fair. ML, on the other hand, I loved. I've been meaning to try out Haskell as I hear it is the spiritual successor of ML. Clojure has many of the conveniences of a modern language, such as data type literals, to mention something incredibly basic but essential. I. e., everything is a "sequence" underneath, sure, but you can still write [1 2 3 4 5] and get yourself a vector/array type of deal. Thus it manages to dispel some of the dusty feeling I got from Common Lisp.
- lispm 12y agoWhat does make you think Common Lisp doesn't have data type literals? A literal vector in Common Lisp: #(1 2 3 4 5) A literal 3d 2x2x2 array in Common Lisp: #3A(((0 1) (2 3)) ((4 5) (6 7))) Using it: CL-USER 4 > (map 'vector #'sqrt #(1 2 3)) #(1.0 1.4142135 1.7320508)