I dove into Lisp and Scheme several times in the past, but only with Clojure did Lisp really "catch"? 1. Clojure abandons the 1950's cruft, with all-caps and abbreviations like SETQ and CDR. However, Scheme does this too, without achieving the ease of Clojure.
2. Clojure is typically illustrated with simple, practical examples. Other Lisps are often introduced as tools for theory. Not that there's anything wrong with that, like they said on Seinfeld. On the other hand, Clojure's examples are often, for better or worse, somewhat more sophisticated than the typical examples used for teaching other languages. 3. Clojure has some syntax choices that make it more readable. It specifies the use of fewer parentheses and uses three types brackets rather than just parentheses. However, some dialects of Lisp do allow the mixture of bracket types for visual variety. 4. The connection to Java, even if not essential to most introductory examples, provides a "lifeline" for the user. 5. Even though pure-functional is not what most programmers are used to, once you learn it, it makes everything else easier; in contrast to non-pure-functional Lisp dialects Any other thoughts on this? Joshua --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
