> > Rich Hickey's insightful videos have caused me to stop > writing loops whenever possible. For me this is the same > level of "thinking-change" that happened when I moved to > using "Structured Programming" rather than GOTO (in Fortran). > Rich needs to write a paper called > "Loops considered harmful" >
That is a great thing, I like that about both Common Lisp and Clojure. Compare with Perl or even Python; you can use map/grep, list comprehensions etc some of the time but not all of the time. I Lisp it's always possible to that in a neat way I think. I know there is a loop macro in CL, which I'm sure can cause many people to just write in some other language's idiom instead of the native one. > Common lisp, however, gives me precise machine-level to > massive function semantics, e.g. (car ...) is a machine > pointer and (integrate ...) is a huge function but I can > freely mix them in (integrate (car ...)). I don't feel the > same "one-ness" in Clojure/Java. > > Yes it is awesome. SBCL has a good enough compile that someone could write a fast OS kernel in it I think. And then we could actually read it and know what it's doing later on, and not have weird buffer overflows. ;) -- 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
