Hi, My main motivation to get away from Java as much as possible was the code size. I was tired of having to write tons of code lines for what I considered mundane things. Using wizards was not satisfactory to me. The generated code size is significant and still it has to be maintained either by hand or by running again a wizard.
Using IDEs like Eclipse solved some of the issues with a huge code size and framework integration with the code if you had the hardware performance on your desktop to run these efficiently. That was not the case until very recently when multi core became affordable on the desktop. The slowness of single core desktop used for development purposes was an absolute Java repellent until 2/3 years ago. Writing tons of XML lines to control behavior of frameworks was also a turn off. We use Spring to create low-level Java beans but the XML describing these beans did not change much over time. That is acceptable. Is there something in the above list that could pull some of your reluctant colleagues on the "dark side" :)) ? If yes then you may want to take an existing chunk of Java code of reasonable size that they work with in everyday life and move that to Clojure or to a Clojure/Java combo... Luc P. alux <alu...@googlemail.com> wrote .. > Hi Patrick, > > yes, I think thats the right way to teach this stuff. My problem > arises earlier - I still have to motivate my collegues, to get them > interested, and, maybe, teach them later ;-) > > Regards, alux > > On 8 Sep., 16:28, CuppoJava <patrickli_2...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I found the easiest way to introduce macros is just to introduce them > > as small syntactic sugaring. For example, getting rid of the explicit > > (fn [] ...) for macros like (with-open file ...). > > Once people get accustomed to this, they naturally extend it to more > > and more complicated usages. > > -Patrick > > > > On Sep 8, 6:12 am, alux <alu...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello Joop, > > > > > thanks for the link. So it seems not to be completely misled ;-) > > > > > Greetings, alux > > > > > On 8 Sep., 11:59, Joop Kiefte <iko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Actually, this metaphor has been used before. Checkhttp://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.htmlforanother > version of > > > > your story ;). > > > > > > 2010/9/8 alux <alu...@googlemail.com>: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > I still try to read my way through Paul Grahams "On Lisp", and always > > > > > think how to motivate this stuff to my fellow Java people. How do I > > > > > describe what it is all about in this "Code is Data", and "Macros let > > > > > you grow your own language towards the problem" stuff? > > > > > [Why? Well, maybe I read to much of Paul Grahams texts. So my current > > > > > working hypothesis is that this is the one big strength of Lisp that > > > > > other languages still dont have - so if I want to motivate people to > > > > > learn a Lisp, I have to at least point to it.] > > > > > > > Short answer: Difficult. ;-) > > > > > > > Especially if I find formulations like > > > > > "You can have the language which suits your program, even if it ends > > > > > up looking quite different from Lisp." > > > > > > > Longer Answer: > > > > > > > What puzzles me most about this quoted formulation is the words > > > > > "different from Lisp", as I know: All my Java collegues see > > > > > Lisp=Parentheses. So, to them, PGs formulation is even misleading. To > > > > > them it doesn't look quite different at the end. > > > > > > > Thus I try to come up with a metaphor, and I want to discuss it here, > > > > > in the hope I don't tell them rubbish at the end. > > > > > > > I want to liken XML to Lisp data. Then, with XSLT, some XML structures > > > > > are actually programs. Programs that work on XML data. The Lisp > > > > > parentheses are just like the basic XML syntax - elements, tags, > > > > > attributes. Obviousely Lisp has a much simpler syntax, but its trees > > > > > anyway. So XSLT can be likened to Lisp macros then. > > > > > > > And the use of it? Well, I currently want to talk to some people who > > > > > use Maven a lot. So the example I came up with is: > > > > > Think about when you had Ant, some years ago. Ant is just a > > > > > programming language for Java builds. > > > > > After a while you recognise that it'd be better to have something that > > > > > describes the project declaratively, with opinionated defaults. Well, > > > > > after some discussions you define something called pom.xml, that does > > > > > this (congratulation, we just invented Maven). Immediately you see > > > > > that all these Ant build scripts mentioned above could be generated > > > > > from this Maven pom.xml. So you might write XSLT to do so (this of > > > > > course deviates from historical truth). Some step later, you don't > > > > > generate them anymore as files; the only needed file is the pom.xml, > > > > > and the transformations of course. > > > > > > > So XML and XSLT are data and code, and they can do something that is > > > > > a) similar to what Lisp macros do, and > > > > > b) this is something my collegues understand. > > > > > > > Hopefully. > > > > > > > So, coming back to Paul Grahams quote, what the beginners see is: It > > > > > was XML and stays XML. The things "looking quite different" are, in > > > > > this metaphor, the XML schema of the Maven pom.xml versus the XML > > > > > scheme of the Ant files. > > > > > > > I hope that they will understand the power; and agree they will never > > > > > try and do this in XSLT. The Lisp syntax is just simple enough to be > > > > > usable for such tasks. > > > > > > > So, now you probably understand why I ask this question here, even if > > > > > it is a general Lisp question. This may be the only group where people > > > > > understand Lisp and Macros, XML/XSLT, and Ant, and Maven ;-) > > > > > > > Now the question: > > > > > Do you see any problems with this metaphor, is it misleading > > > > > somewhere? > > > > > > > Thank you, alux > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > > Linux-user #496644 (http://counter.li.org) - first touch of linux in > > > > 2004 > > > > > > Demandoj en aŭ pri Esperanto? Questions about Esperanto? Vragen over > > > > Esperanto? Perguntas sobre o Esperanto? -http://demandoj.tk > > -- > 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 -- 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
