The people is not a sufficient answer(I am sure you knew that but I had to say it anyway). It is really simple...
1. Homoiconic syntax 2. meta programming facility(macros in the case of clojure but other LISP's have gone farther with this than clojure has) These two "powers" are what draws so many to use LISP. What were we taught in computer science 101? Was it not that abstraction is the end all, be all of computer science? If it is true that abstraction is king, then macros are the divine right, the very justification that LISP is the MOST powerful language there is. You know someone is a LISP neophyte when they ask the question, "What features does LISP have that language x does not have?". LISP has all features and no features, it is in your hands. The language is so malleable that it can absorb any new abstraction in a fraction of time any other language can come up with said abstraction. While absorbing the abstraction, LISP does not need changes to its compiler. During its process of scoffing(laughing at other languages mucking around in low-level hell), LISP takes on new abstraction with NO RUN TIME PENALTY! People are adamant in saying that their language can abstract as well, but does it cost precious cpu cycles? How long does it take to make these abstraction? Do these abstractions look just like all the other code in said language? So, with LISP you can have any feature you want or are jealous that any other language possesses. For a good example of LISP power look at the type system of Shen. One man was able to create a type system on par(or even better) with a type system that took a team of respectable academics years of work; Haskell. TLDR; easy abstraction without cost! On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:29:30 PM UTC-4, Devin Walters (devn) wrote: > > Battle-tested libraries are nice, and Java has a lot of them. Clojure > programmers can use all of them with relative ease. I recently tried > Erlang/Elixir and was disappointed in the library ecosystem. > > Another answer to why Clojure is powerful is the company it keeps. The > people who work on Clojure and its ecosystem (libraries, build tools, blog > posts, screencasts, podcasts, conferences, etc.) are a wonderful group of > people who have never ceased to amaze me. The creativity, engineering, and > generosity. In my life I've seldom been a part of such a vibrant and > inspiring community. > > I struggle to tap this into my phone without more evidence to support it, > but it seems to me that Lisps just seem to attract the right kind of > people. Take that on faith or not at all, but I struggle to find a better > explanation. The technical explanations are all well and good, but "It's > the people, stupid." seems like the best answer I can come up with. > > On Sep 4, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Tomislav Tomšić <tom...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > I suspect, there are numerous possible ways to answer that question. One > can ignore it, others would care to offer superficial, "no it isn't", but I > guess, few would answer, it is because clojure is the member of the Lisp > family of programming languages. Which immediately invites predictable > question. > > > Why is Lisp so powerful? > > I guesstimate, there are three possible responses on that question. One is > to ignore it, second one is to take it as encouragement for further > inquiry, and the third one is to say something along the following lines: > “It is because of the lists, dummy. Lisp is built on lists.” > > > Very well then, why are lists so powerful? > > > Yes, there is answer(s), but as I hope we all know, every answer opens the > door for new questions and problems. In other words, we have an, hopefully > clear and self-understandable, answer to why is Lisp so powerful, but we > are now facing numerous, previously unimaginable choices and opportunities > to improve Lisp further, which is the reason why I am putting this message > here, in the group dedicated to the new and continually improving member of > Lisp programming family. > > > I hope to solve and clarify as many as I can, but it demands time and > other resources, which is why I decided to put answer(s) and reasons for > them in a book. It is called “Arrogance of Abstraction”, and it is > available through Amazon. Amazon allows, even encourages authors, to put an > effort to contact audience. In other words, it will be available for free > download from Amazon at following days this month: 2013-09-08 and > 2013-09-13. I haven't decided yet at what other days will be available for > download. If you have an advice, feel free to put it here. > > > Thank you for your patience > > Tomislav Tomsic > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
