Clojure is not a pure functional programming language. It allows side- effects everywhere.
On Mar 22, 3:26 pm, Joshua Fox <joshuat...@gmail.com> wrote: > I dove into Lisp and Scheme several times in the past, but only with Clojure > did Lisp really "catch"? > 1. Clojure abandons the 1950's cruft, with all-caps and abbreviations like > SETQ and CDR. However, Scheme does this too, without achieving the ease of > Clojure. > > 2. Clojure is typically illustrated with simple, practical examples. Other > Lisps are often introduced as tools for theory. Not that there's anything > wrong with that, like they said on Seinfeld. On the other hand, Clojure's > examples are often, for better or worse, somewhat more sophisticated than > the typical examples used for teaching other languages. > > 3. Clojure has some syntax choices that make it more readable. It specifies > the use of fewer parentheses and uses three types brackets rather than just > parentheses. However, some dialects of Lisp do allow the mixture of bracket > types for visual variety. > > 4. The connection to Java, even if not essential to most introductory > examples, provides a "lifeline" for the user. > > 5. Even though pure-functional is not what most programmers are used to, > once you learn it, it makes everything else easier; in contrast to > non-pure-functional Lisp dialects > > Any other thoughts on this? > > Joshua --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
