On Dec 11, 1:14 am, ngocdaothanh <ngocdaoth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Do you come from a Python background? > > For the sake of this discussion, I would say I come from Erlang. > > > Judging by you examples, I looks like you're still getting used to the lisp > > style of coding. Everything is a chained function call. > > You're correct. Comming from Erlang: > * I tend to see things as if they are in a chain, concatted by commas. > * I feel that I have to write lots of nested "let"s for temporary > immutables. I think to avoid adding "let"s, Clojurians would just > don't use temporary immutables. This makes Clojure code hard to > understand, because temporary immutables with good names help explain > the code. The tricks to avoid adding "let"s in previous posts are very > ugly in my opinion. Is this style of "let" common and a good practice > to follow? (I just want to know, sorry if my expression is offensive) > > > What do you mean by abstractness? > > By "abstractness level" in the previous post, I mean level of code > block. For example I would say B1 and B4 are of the same level. > > B1 > | B2 > | B3 > B4 > > Because of indents, my previous Clojure code lied to my eyes that x, > y, f, g are not at the same block level. This is my difficulty with > Clojure. In short, I can't see a rough algorithm from any Clojure code > any more just by seeing the shape (levels) of blocks. To understand a > Clojure code, I have to look at every bit of code, look closer. > > > In Clojure we still need to look farther up the screen... > > Things in Erlang are immutable, so I think Clojure has no advantage > over Erlang here. > > > Practice using comp & partial... > > What do you mean by "comp & partial"? Could you please explain? > > > (let [x 1 > > y (+ x 2)] > > (f x) > > (g y)) > > Well, I know my example code can be rewritten like that, but I just > could not give a better one. > > Rearranging like this reminds me of C, in which every variables must > be listed beforehand. Since all Clojurians say "lazy" is good, I would > say I prefer C++ because I can be lazy in it, I only have to declare a > variable when I actually use it. > > I'm lost in Clojure, please light me a way. > > Lots of thanks.
It would be much easier if you pasted some real code. So far it just looks like complaining that you find it awkward to write clojure in an imperative style. -- 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
