>
> There's MLj http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/nick/mlj.htm
>
Unfortunately MLj is almost totally bit-rotted at this stage. I made a
valiant attempt to get it going a couple of years back but it would be a
lot of work, and once you have it working it doesn't fully support SML.
It's
What projects specifically do you find lack documentation and
well-organized code?
If the problem statement is: "Some projects have code that is not easily
comprehended," the solution is contribution.
If the problem statement is: "Clojure lends itself to writing code that is
not easily comprehe
On Apr 5, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Jason Felice wrote:
> I focus on expressivity, specifically because of the write-only phenomenom.
> This isn't peculiar to clojure; this happened a lot in the Perl days (so much
> so, that that's where I remember "write-only code" being coined).
FWIW I think "wri
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 3:04:01 PM UTC-7, Gary Trakhman wrote:
>
> At least in my case, this process of mental macro/functioncall expansion,
> or 'abstraction-surfing' as I like to call it, got easier over time. I
> feel like it's been a general skill to hone for programming in general, and
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:51:10 PM UTC-7, Jason Felice wrote:
>
> In the original post:
>
> > I had been writing elegant but deeply nested Clojure code that was very
> difficult to read ...
>
> I focus on expressivity, specifically because of the write-only
> phenomenom. This isn't peculiar
In the original post:
> I had been writing elegant but deeply nested Clojure code that was very
difficult to read ...
I focus on expressivity, specifically because of the write-only phenomenom.
This isn't peculiar to clojure; this happened a lot in the Perl days (so
much so, that that's where I
It's a sincere no from me, but I can tell you I've met plenty of
non-clojurites/lispers who sneer at lisp it seems solely due to the
parentheses. It seems misguided to me though.
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:14:36 PM UTC-7, Travis Wellman wrote:
>
> Francois Rey,
>
> Yes I've been following tha
At least in my case, this process of mental macro/functioncall expansion,
or 'abstraction-surfing' as I like to call it, got easier over time. I
feel like it's been a general skill to hone for programming in general, and
lisp emphasizes this more than anything else I've seen, but maybe I just
dran
Without parenthesis you have to resolve ambiguity through other means such
as the off-side rule, additional operators. Clojure makes it easy to write
dense code that is hard to maintain, but some of your trouble might be
resolved by structuring your code differently. One example would be
Prisma
Francois Rey,
Yes I've been following that project. They're going for purity, which means
reimplementing a lot of standard java stuff in Frege. Cool project, but
what I really want is Clojure. Everything Clojure without the parens. So
you'd get lists, and homoiconicity, and all the Clojure libs
On 05/04/14 19:35, Travis Wellman wrote:
To be clear, in this topic I'm not interested in the functional purity
of Haskell, nor it's libraries or type system, but just the syntax.
It's probably not the answer you're looking for but did you check
https://github.com/Frege/frege?
--
You received
I can't answer your question from my own experience, but there does seem to
be a way to develop your own language on the JVM:
https://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/index.html
You could create a "DSL" to your precise specifications.
Regards,
Greg
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
I always felt that clojure compared to java is about 10x more dense, but
only 3x harder to read and write in lines, and the overhead is dependent on
the level of abstraction, as it should be. Having only the essence removes
noise.
Also, in java, raising the level of abstraction generally creates
The way I think about syntax is:
Given:
* my brain has limited processing power (measured in kilo-hertz ?)
* my brain has very limited L1 cache
Question:
* do I want to store the operator-precedence + left/right
associativity rules of Haskell operators in my brain
* spend brain cycles p
Clojure syntax (I.e. parentheses) enable features in the language- you can't
remove them without sacrificing functionality.
Personally, I feel the uniformity of Clojure syntax makes it easier for me to
reason about code. When I'm working in a language like, say, Ruby, I have to
think ahead abo
I find Haskell syntax completely unreadable. Just saying
On Apr 5, 2014 11:36 AM, "Travis Wellman" wrote:
> When I started learning Haskell after a year or more of Clojure, the
> syntax was refreshing, and I found myself wishing I could write Clojure
> with Haskell syntax.
>
> Later I left Cl
When I started learning Haskell after a year or more of Clojure, the syntax
was refreshing, and I found myself wishing I could write Clojure with
Haskell syntax.
Later I left Clojure behind for plain Java because of code maintenance
issues. I had been writing elegant but deeply nested Clojure c
17 matches
Mail list logo
