On 18 Dec 2009, at 06:42, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:44:02 -0500 > Luc Préfontaine <lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> wrote: > >> Mike, I think that the whole issue about Lisp creates a big cloud >> about >> Clojure. > > Yes, it does. When I mention that, people tend to shudder. That's the price Clojure pays for S-exprs rather than using M-exprs or even Dylan-exprs. Clojure quacks like a lisp. Martin > >> If you sum up Clojure as being a Lisp because of what it look likes >> and >> use only this to compare it to other >> languages then you are missing the forest and looking at a single >> tree. > > I agree with that as well. My point wasn't that Clojure is "just > another LISP", it's that a good grasp on writing LISP well gets you > over the biggest hurdle in going from C-family languages to Clojure. > >> If you code in a Lisp like language using setq or set! or alike >> then you >> can get very far away from functional >> programming and end up writing procedural code with parenthesis. You >> will eventually face the issues that Clojure avoids. > > Yup, but those were considered bad style in the places I learned > LISP. If you avoided those - as I was taught to do - the code you > wrote looks a lot like most of the Clojure code I've seen to date. > >> Clojure takes a brutal approach, forget the left-right assignment >> that >> almost every language eventually >> supports, forget variable mutations visible to everyone, forget >> procedural code... >> Oups these are the real show stoppers independently of the syntax >> used. >> There's no escapes in Clojure while in other languages you can still >> cheat (setq/set! and similar). > > Why don't you consider ref's and atoms escapes in Clojure? I can use > those to write C code with Clojure syntax, just like I can use setters > to write C code with Scheme syntax. The point isn't how easy/hard it > is to write C code with that syntax; it's that well-written LISP looks > an awful lot like well-written Clojure. > >> What I found non-trivial in Clojure were these "restrictions", no the >> syntax. As soon as I understood >> the decisions behind these choices, my mental blockage vanished. > > Again, I agree. The real issue isn't the syntax, it's the > *mindset*. Well-written LISP is functional, and tends to avoid set, > and dynamically scoped variables, and macros that capture variables, > and all such things. Sure, they're available if you find yourself > stuck, but they shouldn't be your first choice. > >> Immutable data structures, transparent iterations over a variety of >> structures, lazy sequences, a workable STM implementation, >> parallel processing capabilities ridiculously simple to use, huge >> set of >> Java librairies available, easy to use, ... >> These are the real features that make Clojure distinct from other >> languages. All the choices made are sound and the >> sum of these decisions is coherent. Nothing looks like it's been >> added >> late to fill a gap like a nose in a face. > > Yes, but it's the sum of those choices that make Clojure > distinct. Each of them exist in one or more other languages. > > My point was that of all of those features, the hardest to get used to > if you haven't seen it before is the LISP-like functional programming > aspect. That's a fundamental change in the way you program. The rest > of them - well, they may be major improvements in the areas they touch > upon, but they don't change they way you think about programming much > outside of that area. Those others are like switching from playing > cornerback to safety, or defensive end to tackle. Getting used to pure > functional programming the first time is like switching from defensive > end to wicket-keeper. > >> I adhere to justified critics when a rationale has been exposed >> otherwise I call it (repeat "blablabla"). > > I wasn't claiming that the original analysis was anywhere near > correct. I was responding to the claim that two or three months wasn't > enough time to learn Clojure well. I don't see anything here that > someone who's already got their head around writing pure functional > code should have a lot of trouble with in that amount of time. Sure, > there are other pure functional languages with loopholes - and even > some with high-level concurrency features - but those are all even > less popular than LISP when it comes to real-world programming. > >> To expose some rationale it implies that you understand the subject >> you >> are talking about. If you don't then you should >> be cautious about what you state or you state it conditionally. > > You state that as if there were hard scientific facts behind any of > this. When was the last time you saw a serious scientific study of how > any of these features - or pretty much any set of features - affect > programmer productivity? All we've got is hearsay and personal > experience, possibly gussied up as "case studies" to make them sound > respectable. > > So would it make you happy if I point out that my conclusions are > based on my experiences? I think comparing peni.. uh, years of > experience is a silly thing. A fool with lots of experience is still a > fool. However, I've managed to deal with every feature you mentioned > above, and every feature I've found so far in Clojure, in some form or > another during my career. The only one that make me have to stop and > do a complete mental reset - that makes me feel like I'm suddenly > trying to code upside down, or backwards, or both - is pure functional > programming. The only thing even remotely comparable to that was > learning how to write horizontal microcode. > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html > Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more > information. > > O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org > > -- > 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 > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient > with your first post. > 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 -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
