Timeline for What's so great about Clojure? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2017 at 13:59 | comment | added | Mars |
Don't fear parentheses! (a) Use an editor that helps you keep track of them. (b) Learn lisp indentation rules, which allow you to write code compactly in a way that makes it easy to keep track of what's inside of what. (c) Use an editor that will automatically indent according to lisp indentation rules. (d) You get used to them; the parentheses are really not a problem, and lisp syntax has advantages mentioned elsewhere on this page. (e) Clojure has fewer parentheses than other lisps. Square brackets e.g. in Clojure's let make it easier to read than Common Lisp's let.
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Nov 3, 2016 at 19:54 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 4, 2016 at 19:20 | |||||
| Nov 5, 2015 at 8:29 | comment | added | scadge | I've just started learning Clojure a few days ago, but I think Compojure having only 5 source files with not so much lines pretty much talks for itself. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 21:38 | comment | added | wirrbel |
Usually data is simple. Lists, Arrays, (Hash) Maps, Sets are quite easily understandable. [a: 1, b: [2,3]] etc. Contrast this to "Commands". Syntax rules are really annoying and complicated. Lisp and Clojure's decision is to reduce all syntax to that of data description. This turns out to be really powerful. As a Web developer, you usually deal with HTML/XML, CSS, Javascript/JSON. All have different Syntax. See github.com/Prismatic/dommy for a solution that only uses only Clojure syntax to do all these things. It also scales well with a growing codebase.
|
|
| Jan 18, 2013 at 21:58 | history | unprotected | yannis | ||
| Dec 12, 2012 at 13:54 | comment | added | KChaloux |
I started looking at Clojure recently (but I have prior experience with Haskell and Scala, so the syntax isn't such a shock). I actually found it surprisingly readable. There are very few symbols outside of parenthesis compared to many languages, and almost no reserved words. The reason you find it unreadable is because it's a totally new paradigm and works in a fundamentally different way than a typical Object Oriented language. Give it some time and power through.
|
|
| Dec 12, 2012 at 1:05 | vote | accept | marco-fiset | ||
| Dec 12, 2012 at 0:58 | answer | added | limist | timeline score: 48 | |
| Dec 12, 2012 at 0:46 | history | closed |
Robert Harvey Walter Thomas Owens♦ |
not constructive | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 22:34 | comment | added | Giorgio | "arguably, lisp like functional languages have a very clean syntax and structure, its just one most people aren't used to.": I have very little experience with Lisp and I have just started to read the book "Practical Common Lisp". So far, I haven't encountered any problems with the syntax; IMHO the myths about Lisp-like syntax being less readable are just FUD. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 22:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 12, 2012 at 0:34 | |||||
| Dec 11, 2012 at 22:22 | comment | added | Job | Any teenager living in a basement can pick up Python and Ruby in a matter of few months. If that is all they ever want to use, then they will never get out of the basement. I am not saying that someone who has done professional Python development for many years is a lesser mortal comparing to someone who writes embedded C, but if Python and Ruby is all they know and all they ever want to know, then something is fishy. By the way, it took me personally over 6 years after graduating to discover and appreciate functional programming and Lisps. My first reaction to Scheme was a knee-jerk. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 22:15 | answer | added | DPM | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:54 | history | protected | maple_shaft♦ | ||
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:49 | history | edited | pdr |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:44 | comment | added | DPM | To be fair, lisp code and clojure in particular is somewhat harder to read and understand. Having said that, Clojure have multiple important advantages that have already been discussed in this community. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:32 | answer | added | bunglestink | timeline score: 21 | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:17 | comment | added | marco-fiset | @JasonHolland I think the name is cool too, but that is not enough to convince me ;) | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:16 | history | edited | marco-fiset | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 99 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:14 | comment | added | marco-fiset | @MichaelT Ruby and Python too have implementations that run on the JVM so this point is not compelling for me. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:12 | comment | added | programmer | Its name is sexy. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:12 | comment | added | user40980 |
I don't understand why someone would pick Clojure over say, Ruby or Python - it runs on the jvm and can use the entire java library. ... have such a clean syntax arguably, lisp like functional languages have a very clean syntax and structure, its just one most people aren't used to.
|
|
| Dec 11, 2012 at 21:09 | history | asked | marco-fiset | CC BY-SA 3.0 |