Comments on: Clojure: “Being a Lisp Is a Handicap” http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/02/clojure-being-a-lisp-is-a-handicap/ Software engineering in a computational biology environment Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:36:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ross Judson http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/02/clojure-being-a-lisp-is-a-handicap/comment-page-1/#comment-1713 Ross Judson Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:19:23 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=200#comment-1713 I like the prolog operators, and how they can make things quite readable. Looking at the clojure code, it doesn't look like it would be very difficult to insert an "operator transformation" immediately after macroexpand, in Compiler. I like the prolog operators, and how they can make things quite readable. Looking at the clojure code, it doesn’t look like it would be very difficult to insert an “operator transformation” immediately after macroexpand, in Compiler.

]]> By: jneira http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/02/clojure-being-a-lisp-is-a-handicap/comment-page-1/#comment-1100 jneira Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:25:39 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=200#comment-1100 The op flexibility (op infix == function prefix) reminds me haskell, i suppose haskell borrow it from prolog (directly or not). But it seems that the compiler has to be necessarily more complicated and you have to keep in mind the precedence rules (even if your have created or changed the rules!). I am sure that (for other features of Clojure) Hickey built clojure with Haskell-Ocaml in mind and chose a unique way for good reason. Anyway reader macros are discouraged but it is possible to use them (trough java or pure clojure code) See: http://fulldisclojure.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-write-clojure-reader-macro.html http://briancarper.net/blog/clojure-reader-macros The op flexibility (op infix == function prefix) reminds me haskell, i suppose haskell borrow it from prolog (directly or not). But it seems that the compiler has to be necessarily more complicated and you have to keep in mind the precedence rules (even if your have created or changed the rules!). I am sure that (for other features of Clojure) Hickey built clojure with Haskell-Ocaml in mind and chose a unique way for good reason. Anyway reader macros are discouraged but it is possible to use them (trough java or pure clojure code)
See:
http://fulldisclojure.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-write-clojure-reader-macro.html
http://briancarper.net/blog/clojure-reader-macros

]]> By: tiago http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/02/clojure-being-a-lisp-is-a-handicap/comment-page-1/#comment-864 tiago Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:51:31 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=200#comment-864 Thanks for the comment. Note the following, though: The Prolog type of solution DOES NOT IMPOSE infix notation. It can accommodate both types of syntax. +(2,3,X) - equivalent to (+ 2 3) 2 + 3. Note full flexibility and freedom to choose your style with the :- op built-in . And at very little cost in parser complexity. No hard-coded operators at all. Thanks for the comment. Note the following, though: The Prolog type of solution DOES NOT IMPOSE infix notation. It can accommodate both types of syntax.

+(2,3,X) – equivalent to (+ 2 3)
2 + 3.

Note full flexibility and freedom to choose your style with the :- op built-in . And at very little cost in parser complexity. No hard-coded operators at all.

]]> By: E[X] http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/02/clojure-being-a-lisp-is-a-handicap/comment-page-1/#comment-860 E[X] Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:23:47 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=200#comment-860 Actually, it isn't easy to do in clojure because it lacks reader macros. However infix syntax on lisp has been attempted many times and it never became mainstream, probably because the code that really benefits from it is ends up being much less common than you intuitively think it is and the abuntant number of parenthesis are there because of the deeply nested style lisp programmers (myself included) tend to favor. Actually, it isn’t easy to do in clojure because it lacks reader macros.
However infix syntax on lisp has been attempted many times and it never became mainstream, probably because the code that really benefits from it is ends up being much less common than you intuitively think it is and the abuntant number of parenthesis are there because of the deeply nested style lisp programmers (myself included) tend to favor.

]]>