Hello, don't let anybody convince you that clojure code should be both compact and unreadable for common mortals to deserve the right to be called idiomatic !
The first example which you consider "clojure style" is unredeable ! I tried several variations of coding this in clojure (not tested) here: http://pastebin.com/4G5DN3Jw IMO, Idiomatic clojure code is more in corerctly using the different parts: correct separation of state and identity, right balance between functions / multimethods / macros / (coming in 1.2) protocols, prefer higher order functions if they do not impact on readability and/or performance, etc. HTH, -- Laurent 2010/5/19 edlich <edl...@gmail.com>: > Dear Community, > > I have one question about readability. As I am not yet deep into > Clojure I can only post scala but I am sure you will get my point. > > Recently I wrote the following dump function in Scala: > > // convert 1228 to "e2e4" > def move2ascii(move: Int): String = { // Clojure Style > (((move / 100) % 8 + 97).toChar).toString + ((move / 100) / 8 + > 1).toString + > (((move % 100) % 8 + 97).toChar).toString + ((move % > 100) / 8 + 1).toString > } > > but I could as well have written it like this in an imprative style: > (both are equal) > > def move2ascii(move: Int): String = { // Scala Style > val f1 = move / 100 > val f2 = move % 100 > val row1 = f1 / 8 + 1 // 2 von e2 > val row2 = f2 / 8 + 1 // 4 von e4 > val col1 = (f1 % 8 + 97).toChar // 5 = e von e2 > val col2 = (f2 % 8 + 97).toChar // 5 = e von e4 > col1.toString + row1.toString + col2.toString + row2.toString > } > > I am sure if you write the first function in Clojure it would look > nearly the same. > > My point and my question is: > > Isn't the second function easier to read? I know there had been a lot > of threads about readability > in clojure but I am not yet convinced. > In the second version the brain can rely on some steps inbetween which > make it more readable > for me. Or should the first function be split up into several more > functions to become more readable? > > I would be happy if you convince me to give Clojure a better chance. > > Thanks in advance > Stefan Edlich > > P.S.: It's nice to see the upcoming Clojure book in Manning! > > -- > 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
