Bear with the trials and tribulations (of grokking functional/clojure). It takes a few weeks of trying things out, absorbing the documentation and group archives, watching the group posts and then suddenly there are one or two "aha" moments and then the flood gates open! When you've crossed the threshold, it's too late - you can never go back. You'll want to go and redo everything you've ever done imperatively! For me the "aha" moments came when I first (really) understood reduce, map and fn. I'd reccomend focusing on those and trying to (first) do all your looping constructs with those rather than loop/recur - that forces you to learn to think functional while loop/recur still lets your mind stick to imperative patterns.
Regards, Adrian. On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:24 AM, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > here's a good explanation: > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/3c22b35f079e0de6/95fc0b334ab77c1f > > I wasn't thinking about closures since I've only recently even learned what > they are. I actually don't know if it will ever occur to me to use them, > but it sounds like they are the reason we are encouraged to jump through > such hoops even for local variables. closures allow them to "leak". > > It's funny, whenever I tried to be all safe like this and take the time to > make stuff safe in C++, coworkers would say, "we are grown-ups. At some > point you gotta stop being a paranoid programmer. Document the usage, and > woe be it unto the user who doesn't 'RTFM'". > > Another thing is to make the common case easy . . . .and uh, mutable local > variables are pretty darn common, as Rich anticipated when he predicted that > people would be excited about the 'with-local-vars' macro. I was thinking > the same thing, "fine, I'll learn how to write macros, then". I can see > that this issue comes up again and again with everyone who walks in the > door, and it probably will continue to. Who knows, maybe Rich will change > the world. It sure will take a lot of energy. That's for sure. > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Timothy Pratley <timothyprat...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> > thread should own the memory that's created. Each thread should have >> > its own asynchronous stack to push local variables onto that no one >> > else is allowed to see. >> >> Just for the record, Clojure does support local variable that behave >> exactly as you would expect them: >> (with-local-vars [x 3] >> (while (> @x 0) >> (var-set x (- @x 1))) >> @x) >> -> 0 >> >> Using an atom is unnecessary in this case because access is totally >> local. Using an unsafe atom set is a bad habit, as discussed in detail >> on another thread: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/6497e7c8bc58bb4e/c5b3c9dbe6a1f5d5 >> >> However as you have already seen there are more elegant ways to write >> the solution without either. >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
