On 12/20/2010 1:42 PM, Tim Robinson wrote:
I think too many posters here are equating Clojure with Lisp. Clojure is a LISP, but it is not LISP itself.
Since I've worked in a dozen "Lisps" (golden common, VMLisp, Lisp370, Zetalisp, MacLisp, Lisp 1.5, Orien Lisp, etc.) I don't think I would equate Clojure with Lisp. The question I was wrestling with was whether Clojure IS a Lisp, as opposed to a domain-specific language for using immutable Seq data structures over Java.
* Mutability is not a given in all LISP implementations, only some of them. * STM transactions (i.e. state and time management upon non-mutable objects) is a Clojure concept, that no other LISP's have. So I will suggest the OP is not having a LISP ah-ha moment, but rather a Clojure ah-ha moment. Lisp does have it's ah-ha moments in other regards as I am sure is the case with any other language when you move from being able use the language for general programming to being able to use the language abstractions& ideology to change how you approach programs. It's not like programmers didn't have this when everyone moved to OO languages in the first place - they too had an ah-ha I get OO now.
You may be right that other people have the "ah-hah!" moment for their particular language or concepts. My comment was that this event is associated with Lisp and that it is different from "getting the OO mindset" or "getting rule-based programming", etc. I was "getting the STM and immutability concepts" but those were not sufficient to establish (for me) "Lisp". Your enlightenment may vary. Tim Daly -- 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
