On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:23 AM, ntu...@googlemail.com < ntu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:16 pm, Tomi Neste <tomi.ne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But I don't think it would be easy to make it work with Clojure, > > given how polymorphic and dynamic the language is (IMHO Scheme is not too > > far from ML when it comes to type systems). > > Please expand. > Compared to Clojure there are very few polymorphic functions in standard Scheme, for example, there are no generic sequence handling functions (instead you use list-ref, string-ref etc.). Usually defining a structure type creates getter and setter functions specific to the structure type. Most type errors are quickly caught during runtime, as opposed to more dynamic languages where 'type errors' can easily spread through program (common experience for me with Clojure has been that these errors aren't noticed until I hit Java level at some point). Of course being a lisp Scheme is easily extended with more dynamic features but many 'regular' Scheme programs are well typed, some even under H-M style system and the rest with Typed Scheme/Racket. There are different kinds of dynamic typing, Scheme being in the more strict end, at the other end you have languages like Clojure and Python. With Common Lisp some where in the middle. -- tomppa -- 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
