On Jun 28, 1:10 pm, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups. 620...@mired.org> wrote: > Not true as I understand "the Lisp way". You also need to reread the > last paragraph again.
I actually agree with you that the typical block of lisp code is less readable than the typical block of python. It bugs me when lisp advocates present s-expr syntax as the "right" way instead of the engineering tradeoff that it is. You forgo the niceties of a more ergonomic, less primitive syntax in exchange for unparalleled syntactic flexibility and corresponding power it brings. To me this *is* the "Lisp way" - building up the language to your problem by defining new constructs that other languages have to implement from scratch. The difference between clojure's "with-open" and python's "with" illustrates this pretty clearly, the Java legacy that makes "with-open" a 95% solution notwithstanding. What does the "Lisp way" mean to you? > Lately, it seems like the JVM integration comes with more problems > than it solves, and makes me wonder about building Clojure with gjc. The JVM does create some problems for clojure but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this conversation at all if it weren't for clojure's java interop. It's a devil's bargain but it's also the main reason I see more momentum behind clojure now than I've seen behind any lisp in 10 years of dilettante-ish lisping. -- 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
