On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:36:45 PM UTC-4, g vim wrote: > > On 02/05/2015 22:25, Fluid Dynamics wrote: > > > > Ah, but none of them are Lisps. No macros, no DSLs, and thus much less > > of the productivity/code-size-efficiency gains. > > > > Elixir's macros are quite Lispy under the hood and all 3 languages can > arguably generate sophisticated DSLs. I'm as much a fan of Lisp's > benefits as you are but I honestly can't attribute this manpower > discrepancy to the fact that Clojure is a Lisp. I think the community's > overemphasis on library composition could be a bigger factor. >
"Under the hood" is a delicate way of saying "not homoiconic", whereby 90% of the benefit goes away. In any event, the three functional languages you name also do have lower numbers for commits and contributors (three-digits) than the really messy imperative mutability-everywhere languages (four-digits), showing that they are "part of the way there" but not as advanced as Clojure. :) -- 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/d/optout.
