On Jun 16, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Rich Morin wrote: > This is undoubtedly an open-ended (and probably naive) question, but I'm > wondering > how much of the task of translating Common Lisp code into Clojure could be > done by > a program and how useful (eg, idiomatic) the result would be. > > I can think of various kinds of differences that would need to be addressed, > eg: > > approach (eg, CLOS vs FP), > support (eg, Quicklisp vs Clojars), > syntax (eg, functions, macros), > and, of course, function differences > > However, if a mechanized translation could move Common Lisp 80% closer to > Clojure > (in a reasonable fashion), it might be useful for some projects. [etc]
Just anecdotal, but I've translated some of my old Common Lisp stuff to Clojure and found that I relied on mutation (e.g. setf) more than I recalled, and that I had to re-think a lot of algorithms. Big problems around macro definitions too. I think that these kinds of issues might stymie a lot of naive approaches, but by the same token I'd expect non-naive work done in this area to produce interesting results. -Lee -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
