I generally find it easier to get the "bigger picture" of something when I'm stepping a little bit back. With programming languages, sometimes it can involve discovering language n+1 to give some new perspective on language n, and getting the "ah ah" moment with language n.
For example, it's hard to find books about the "philosophy" of object-oriented programming in Java. Books generally go to the details. I had to go get some knowledge in Bertrand Meyer's books as well as see prototype-based object oriented programming in javascript (as opposed to class-based object oriented programming in java). Smalltak serves the purpose as well, putting the focus more on the object than the "class". With lisp flavors, maybe it's because lisp is homoiconic you can "get" the language without going "outside it" ;-) 2010/12/20 Tim Daly <d...@axiom-developer.org> > > > On 12/20/2010 1:42 PM, Tim Robinson wrote: > >> I think too many posters here are equating Clojure with Lisp. >> Clojure is a LISP, but it is not LISP itself. >> > Since I've worked in a dozen "Lisps" (golden common, VMLisp, Lisp370, > Zetalisp, MacLisp, Lisp 1.5, Orien Lisp, etc.) I don't think I would > equate Clojure with Lisp. The question I was wrestling with was whether > Clojure IS a Lisp, as opposed to a domain-specific language for using > immutable Seq data structures over Java. > > > * Mutability is not a given in all LISP implementations, only some of >> them. >> * STM transactions (i.e. state and time management upon non-mutable >> objects) is a Clojure concept, that no other LISP's have. >> >> So I will suggest the OP is not having a LISP ah-ha moment, but rather >> a Clojure ah-ha moment. Lisp does have it's ah-ha moments in other >> regards as I am sure is the case with any other language when you move >> from being able use the language for general programming to being able >> to use the language abstractions& ideology to change how you approach >> programs. It's not like programmers didn't have this when everyone >> moved to OO languages in the first place - they too had an ah-ha I get >> OO now. >> >> You may be right that other people have the "ah-hah!" moment for > their particular language or concepts. My comment was that this > event is associated with Lisp and that it is different from "getting > the OO mindset" or "getting rule-based programming", etc. I was > "getting the STM and immutability concepts" but those were not > sufficient to establish (for me) "Lisp". Your enlightenment may vary. > > Tim Daly > > > > -- > 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<clojure%2bunsubscr...@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
