4 ms·

the parens seems pretty necessary for that expression, I can't even tell what it's doing... it's joining the vector 1,2,3 with a space to make "1 2 3 ", right?

• aaron-lebo 11y ago
  I could have explained the syntax. If you are familiar with Python, it more or less is equivalent to something like: " ".join([1, 2, 3]).count().println() Which, imo, reads much better than: (println (count (join " " [1 2 3]))) Of course, Clojure has the threading macro, but this language emphasizes it.
  • kazinator 11y ago
    Or, rather, maybe it will read better, about a generation after the first crop of high schoolers start being taught f(x).sin().log() instead of log(sin(f(x))).
    • aaron-lebo 11y ago
      I get what you are saying, but when you are talking about programming languages as opposed to math or another domain, more people are familiar or comfortable with the former, hence the reason for numerous posts like the original having to explain why lisp's syntax is a good thing.
      • kazinator 11y ago
        Posts explaining why Lisp's syntax is a good thing have to deal with moving the left parenthesis to include the function: log(sin(f(x)))) -> (log (sin (f x))) They don't have to evangelize function composition being indicated by nesting.
    • Someone 11y ago
      That should be x.f().sin().log() and that is exactly what they type on their calculators: [3] [1/x] [sin] [log] (either that, or I am getting old. Modern graphing calculators may have different input modes)
  • codygman 11y ago
    Clojure is weakly typed? That python won't work since it is strongly typed.
    • aaron-lebo 11y ago
      Key word being like. That syntax works in Ruby, Python, or JS with the right methods defined.