Re: Clojure analysis
Lookup (and contrast) words analysis and opinion in your favorite dictionary. Being a blog I thought that analysis would be from my perspective and hence an opinion. Dictionaries become muddied in the blog world, and mea culpa. If nothing else, at least I will make sure that I am careful :-) -- 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
Re: Clojure analysis
You warn that you learn languages just for the fun of it. I would be curious to know how much time you spent learning Clojure... I have been working with Scheme for the past 5 years. Yep, I don't have 20+ years in development; neither 12+ months in Clojure. My learning of Clojure has been for the past 2-3 months. As I have sent in my blog post I am not a clojure developer. I am a programming language enthusiast. I don't think that disqualifies from expressing an opinion. We have been working with Clojure for more than a 16 months with a message bus software in production for 11 months. Not a simple HelloWorld app To be honest, I have not written complicated software in Clojure. I am from the industry where dynamic languages/scripts are a no-no. I have been trying to sell Python and now Clojure, however there never are any takers. Even amongst the people who are enthusiastic, the fact that Clojure the community (not the language) expects some kind of java knowledge makes it a set back. I went through the same pains. So either you are a genius and went through Clojure faster than we could, learning all the features it offers, or you just skimmed the surface. Neither a genius, nor did I skim through. By the way, isn't Clojure meant to be a minimalist language which one should be able to pick up quick!! Does't Clojure expect you to know more about functional/ declarative programming, than the syntax? So why would you need to be a genius to know the language. My analysis was on the language; not on the library. Meanwhile be humble... I completely miss this. As I said I am not a clojure developer. I am a programming language enthusiast and have learnt multiple languages with different programming paradigms; just for the fun of it. Programming languages which I know are Java, Python, Scheme, okie- dokie PERL, C# which for me is Java with a different library and idiom, C, C++ including the (in)famous STL, COBOL FORTRAN purely because it was in my syllabus, Javascript both in its prototype and functional forms. I have tried to be unbiased; if it exists it might be due to my stronger background in Java, Python, Scheme. Is saying that I learn languages for the fun of it being haughty? Or saying that my bias exists because of my background in Java, Python, Scheme being biased!! For me being humble is to appreciate what should be appreciated, and criticize what should be criticized. Luc On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 13:04 -0800, kusi wrote: http://kusimari.blogspot.com/2009/12/analysing-clojure-programming-la... -- 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
Re: Clojure analysis
Judging by the article you've spent very little time learning Clojure and have managed to get every key point wrong: Clojure is a multi-paradigm language no it's not, and it's most certainty not an OOP language:http://clojure.org/rationale I hear about this everywhere. Is Clojure not a multi-paradigm language because that is the rationale for the language? For me - It supports functional programming. It supports object orientation, though it does not support object oriented constructs. Yep, definitely it does not encourage multiple paradigms, but it allows you to do so! Functional programming finds its best implementation in the homoiconic language family. very debatable statement Sorry, it should have been one of the best implementation. In any case having seen different implementations, I definitely feel drawn towards homoiconic languages. one will not appreciate Clojure for being a better LISP. Instead Clojure tries to be a better Java with LISP syntax. Not sure who the 'one' is. I for one do appreciate Clojure as a better Lisp :-). I would disagree. Anyway in language preferences everything is debatable. :-) Owing to the above attitude, many of the language constructs exist so that one can do what Java cannot do Is Java some kind of golden standard in language design now? If it was a golden standard then I and maybe you would never have tried to learn anything else. However, please note that Java is what opened the floodgates. Like Fyodor Dostoevsky's we all came from Gogol's overcoat, many of us came from Java's overcoat. In general I'd like to second Luc's be humble comment. And do your home work before doing analysis. Again the same statement about being humble :-( -- 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
Re: Clojure analysis
Thanks Dmitry and Richard. In all the replies I found yours to be the most humble. Even though my analysis says otherwise, I am doing the elevator pitch for Clojure wherever I work. Of course, in an enterprise (where I work), nobody is going to buy it; but in my own world I use Clojure more than Python just because I can get back to Scheme! On Dec 17, 5:04 am, Dmitry Kakurin dmitry.kaku...@gmail.com wrote: Please keep in mind that it is almost literally the speech that I give to my friends/colleagues when they ask me why am I so excited about Clojure. I did it many times now and I have quickly learned that saying persistent data structures gets misinterpreted by every single person as something you can save to file [as XML/binary], i.e. serialization. So the funny thing is: by changing my tune and being imprecise, I communicate the basic idea much better now :-). I do understand and appreciate the difference (and I've watched all Rich's talks :-) but the term is so overloaded that it usually misleads imperative people. Only later I can introduce and use it by giving a formal definition first and letting it settle for a while. And only with people who wants to hear more and cares to learn the difference :). - Dmitry On Dec 17, 12:24 am, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Richard for the good link. So to be even more precise, we can say that clojure's data structures are fully persistent since any older version of the datastructure can still serve as the basis to create new versions. 2009/12/17 Richard Newman holyg...@gmail.com I just learned (the hard way, by being humble and asking :-) ) on #clojure that one does not say immutable collections but persistent collections, since persistent conveys a lot more information about what Rich has achieved than just saying immutable. Good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure Contrast to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object -- 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.comclojure%2bunsubscr...@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
