Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Brian Craft craft.br...@gmail.com wrote: C is a C-language, and it seems a lot simpler than clojure to me. KR is about 200 pages. I expect you mean C++, Java, etc. No, I think Clojure is a lot simpler than C. As for C++, I was on the standards committee for eight years so I know C++ is a lot more complex than C. I was peripherally involved with the C standards process before that (I co-wrote one of the first ANSI-validated C implementations). Not meaning to start a language war, but my own experiences with C++ and Java have mostly convinced me that the added complexity in those languages don't lead to better code: quite the opposite. Happy to agree with you there. I look back at several things I was involved with in the design of C++ and hang my head in shame, a little :) So far it's all been good, except for when I have to muck with java stuff. ;) Cool. Hopefully the longer you spend with Clojure, the more you'll grow to love it... -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
One thing that you might be missing is the expressive power of the sequence handling functions (everything under sequences here: http://clojure.org/cheatsheet ). I found it very useful to follow a few other users in 4clojure [1] which allowed me to compare different styles in their solutions while I was solving the problems. In many cases I was humbled by discovering a half-line solution when I my solution was 5-6 lines! So there is some poetry there I think. Stathis [1] http://www.4clojure.com/ On Wednesday, 17 October 2012 19:14:59 UTC+1, Curtis wrote: I do hope this is an appropriate topic. I am very excited by the power and capability in clojure and amazed at the rapid quality of tooling that exists so early in the projects life. I would like to admit that i am feeling like the simplicity and elegance that I experienced writing in lisp seems to be bypassed in certain areas in favor of extra syntax [] and what seems to be local variable declarations as well as 'many ways' to do something around looping and recursion. I am wondering how others feel about this and if there are any style guides that i could be exposed to so that I can enjoy the poetry that I may be missing. Could some one help me with this please? Thank you! Curtis -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
It's not just you. I'm also surprised at the amount of syntax and the number of ways of doing some things. I suspect that if you come from java or C++ it seems like a simple language, but it feels pretty cluttered compared to other languages. The '-' macro, for example. I've learned to read right-to-left in scheme, but with the - macro we now have to read both right-to-left and left-to-right in the same program. I'm not sure that's an improvement in readability. And as we've learned with perl, you can't just pick the syntax you like best, because you have to be able to read other people's code: you have to know *every* syntax for doing every operation. I don't think clojure is at the perl level of confusion, and I'm very excited about it. I'm very happy with my first small clojure project: it expresses the problem well, and the performance is great. On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Curtis wrote: I do hope this is an appropriate topic. I am very excited by the power and capability in clojure and amazed at the rapid quality of tooling that exists so early in the projects life. I would like to admit that i am feeling like the simplicity and elegance that I experienced writing in lisp seems to be bypassed in certain areas in favor of extra syntax [] and what seems to be local variable declarations as well as 'many ways' to do something around looping and recursion. I am wondering how others feel about this and if there are any style guides that i could be exposed to so that I can enjoy the poetry that I may be missing. Could some one help me with this please? Thank you! Curtis -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
On 18/10/12 17:37, Brian Craft wrote: It's not just you. I'm also surprised at the amount of syntax and the number of ways of doing some things. I suspect that if you come from java or C++ it seems like a simple language, but it feels pretty cluttered compared to other languages. The '-' macro, for example. I've learned to read right-to-left in scheme, but with the - macro we now have to read both right-to-left and left-to-right in the same program. I'm not sure that's an improvement in readability. If the threading macros are a source of confusion for you then you can always choose not to use them...tbh i get a bit annoyed as well when people sue -/- for not so nested expressions (e.g a single chaining). However, I've found that when you want to chain more than say 3-4 forms it greatly improves readability. You can literally read the thing as a sentence. The same with 'doto' regardless of the fact that it returns the object rather than the result of last form... Jim -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Brian Craft craft.br...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect that if you come from java or C++ it seems like a simple language, but it feels pretty cluttered compared to other languages. Interesting observation and probably true. Although I did Lisp back at university (in the early/mid-80's), most of my career has been in C-family languages so, yes, Clojure feels like a VERY simple language with almost no syntax. Having recently read more Scheme / CL code, I can see how folks coming from those languages think Clojure is cluttered. But it's SO much simpler than the C-languages that it must surely be only a little more cluttered than Scheme / CL? Do the differences really seem that big? Genuine question, since I've been immersed in C-languages for so long... -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote: Clojure feels like a VERY simple language with almost no syntax. Having recently read more Scheme / CL code, I can see how folks coming from those languages think Clojure is cluttered. Why do they think it is cluttered? What does that mean? -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
C is a C-language, and it seems a lot simpler than clojure to me. KR is about 200 pages. I expect you mean C++, Java, etc. Not meaning to start a language war, but my own experiences with C++ and Java have mostly convinced me that the added complexity in those languages don't lead to better code: quite the opposite. I tend to agree with Torvald's amusing rants on this subject. So, yeah, coming from C, javascript, scheme, and what-not, clojure seems like it has a large number of different ideas baked into it. Maybe it's the right number of ideas. I'm only a couple weeks into it. So far it's all been good, except for when I have to muck with java stuff. ;) On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:08:14 AM UTC-7, Sean Corfield wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Brian Craft craft...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I suspect that if you come from java or C++ it seems like a simple language, but it feels pretty cluttered compared to other languages. Interesting observation and probably true. Although I did Lisp back at university (in the early/mid-80's), most of my career has been in C-family languages so, yes, Clojure feels like a VERY simple language with almost no syntax. Having recently read more Scheme / CL code, I can see how folks coming from those languages think Clojure is cluttered. But it's SO much simpler than the C-languages that it must surely be only a little more cluttered than Scheme / CL? Do the differences really seem that big? Genuine question, since I've been immersed in C-languages for so long... -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
I do hope this is an appropriate topic. I am very excited by the power and capability in clojure and amazed at the rapid quality of tooling that exists so early in the projects life. I would like to admit that i am feeling like the simplicity and elegance that I experienced writing in lisp seems to be bypassed in certain areas in favor of extra syntax [] and what seems to be local variable declarations as well as 'many ways' to do something around looping and recursion. I am wondering how others feel about this and if there are any style guides that i could be exposed to so that I can enjoy the poetry that I may be missing. Could some one help me with this please? Thank you! Curtis -- 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
Re: Coming from Common Lisp to Clojure
Hi I don't know about style guides, but I can recommend to look to 2 books: The Joy of Clojure Clojure Programming - they provide a lot of interesting information, including tips on writing idiomatic Clojure code On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Curtis cur...@ram9.cc wrote: I do hope this is an appropriate topic. I am very excited by the power and capability in clojure and amazed at the rapid quality of tooling that exists so early in the projects life. I would like to admit that i am feeling like the simplicity and elegance that I experienced writing in lisp seems to be bypassed in certain areas in favor of extra syntax [] and what seems to be local variable declarations as well as 'many ways' to do something around looping and recursion. I am wondering how others feel about this and if there are any style guides that i could be exposed to so that I can enjoy the poetry that I may be missing. Could some one help me with this please? Thank you! Curtis -- 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 -- With best wishes,Alex Ott http://alexott.net/ Twitter: alexott_en (English), alexott (Russian) Skype: alex.ott -- 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
