Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote
Impressive, wonder if they were running this on a single node or more widespread? In a wide spread environment I think Erlang would be the true winner, though it does not natively have macros :-( There is an implementation of Lisp for Erlang called LFE (lisp flavored Erlang) which I looked at, which does have macros and a real engine underneath. But clojure is an awesome combination On Sep 7, 7:32 am, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote: I just wanted to share this experience from World Singles... Back in November 2009, we started developing with Scala. We needed a long-running process that published large volumes of changes from our member database as XML packets published to a custom search engine. The mapping from half a dozen tables in the database to a flat XML schema was pretty complex and the company had tried a number of solutions with mixed success in the past. I introduced Scala based on the promises of performance, concurrency and type safety - and conciseness (especially with XML being a native data type in Scala). We've been running the Scala publishing daemons in production for most of two years. Generally they work pretty well but, under stress, they tend to hit Out of Memory exceptions and, after a lot of poking around, we became fairly convinced it was due (at least in part) to the default actor implementation in Scala. Scala is going to fold in Akka soon and we had been considering migrating to Akka anyone... But having introduced Clojure this year (after experimenting with it since about May last year), we figured we'd have a short spike to create a Clojure version of the Scala code to see how it worked out. It took about 15 hours to recreate the publishing daemon in Clojure and get it to pass all our tests. Today we ran a soak test publishing nearly 300,000 profiles in one run. The Scala code would fail with OoM exceptions if we hit it with 50,000 profiles in one run (sometimes less). The Clojure code sailed thru and is still happily running - so we'll be replacing the Scala code during our next production build. The other aspect that's interesting is that the Scala code totaled about 1,000 lines (about 31k characters of code). The Clojure replacement is just under 260 lines (around 11.5k characters of code). Neither code base has much in the way of comments (*ahem* - I'm not proud of that, just pointing out that there's no noise offsetting the code comparison). That doesn't include unit tests either, it's just the raw production code. The form of the Clojure code mostly follows the form of the Scala code, most of the same functions - it was very functional Scala - with some refactoring to helper functions to make it more modular and more maintainable. The net result is (obviously) that we'll be taking the Clojure publishing daemon to production and we'll be dropping Scala completely. Kudos to Rich Hickey and the Clojure/core team for creating a great general purpose language that can solve big problems - thank you! -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View --http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. --http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. --http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:15 PM, cig clifford.goldb...@gmail.com wrote: Impressive, wonder if they were running this on a single node or more widespread? We run an instance of the process on multiple nodes, configured slightly differently. We needed some parallelization to improve throughput but didn't need a massive net of processes. And we needed JVM interop so Erlang is out (and Erjang isn't yet mature enough - at least, not last time I looked). But clojure is an awesome combination Indeed. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
Native Erlang does have a macro facility, but it is not as powerful as Lisp/Clojure's. On Sep 15, 2:15 am, cig clifford.goldb...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] In a wide spread environment I think Erlang would be the true winner, though it does not natively have macros :-( [snip] -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Edward Garson egar...@gmail.com wrote: Native Erlang does have a macro facility, but it is not as powerful as Lisp/Clojure's. lfe, baby, though of course that is not native erlang. -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:44:09 PM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote: It was intended to be purely anecdotal but that doesn't seem to satisfy anyone! :) Homer: You know, when I was a boy, I really wanted a catcher's mitt, but my dad wouldn't get it for me. So I held my breath until I passed out and banged my head on the coffee table. The doctor thought I might have brain damage. Bart: Dad, what's the point of this story? Homer: I like stories. -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
I adore Clojure as well, but could this success not be partially due to the reimplementing for the second time phenomenon? i.e. if you re- wrote the entire thing in Scala again, perhaps you would see similar gains in brevity etc? On Sep 6, 10:32 pm, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote: I just wanted to share this experience from World Singles... Back in November 2009, we started developing with Scala. We needed a long-running process that published large volumes of changes from our member database as XML packets published to a custom search engine. The mapping from half a dozen tables in the database to a flat XML schema was pretty complex and the company had tried a number of solutions with mixed success in the past. I introduced Scala based on the promises of performance, concurrency and type safety - and conciseness (especially with XML being a native data type in Scala). We've been running the Scala publishing daemons in production for most of two years. Generally they work pretty well but, under stress, they tend to hit Out of Memory exceptions and, after a lot of poking around, we became fairly convinced it was due (at least in part) to the default actor implementation in Scala. Scala is going to fold in Akka soon and we had been considering migrating to Akka anyone... But having introduced Clojure this year (after experimenting with it since about May last year), we figured we'd have a short spike to create a Clojure version of the Scala code to see how it worked out. It took about 15 hours to recreate the publishing daemon in Clojure and get it to pass all our tests. Today we ran a soak test publishing nearly 300,000 profiles in one run. The Scala code would fail with OoM exceptions if we hit it with 50,000 profiles in one run (sometimes less). The Clojure code sailed thru and is still happily running - so we'll be replacing the Scala code during our next production build. The other aspect that's interesting is that the Scala code totaled about 1,000 lines (about 31k characters of code). The Clojure replacement is just under 260 lines (around 11.5k characters of code). Neither code base has much in the way of comments (*ahem* - I'm not proud of that, just pointing out that there's no noise offsetting the code comparison). That doesn't include unit tests either, it's just the raw production code. The form of the Clojure code mostly follows the form of the Scala code, most of the same functions - it was very functional Scala - with some refactoring to helper functions to make it more modular and more maintainable. The net result is (obviously) that we'll be taking the Clojure publishing daemon to production and we'll be dropping Scala completely. Kudos to Rich Hickey and the Clojure/core team for creating a great general purpose language that can solve big problems - thank you! -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View --http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. --http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. --http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
Isn't it Brooks who said you will throw it away at least 3 times, or something like this ? :) 2011/9/13 Nathan Sorenson n...@sfu.ca I adore Clojure as well, but could this success not be partially due to the reimplementing for the second time phenomenon? i.e. if you re- wrote the entire thing in Scala again, perhaps you would see similar gains in brevity etc? On Sep 6, 10:32 pm, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote: I just wanted to share this experience from World Singles... Back in November 2009, we started developing with Scala. We needed a long-running process that published large volumes of changes from our member database as XML packets published to a custom search engine. The mapping from half a dozen tables in the database to a flat XML schema was pretty complex and the company had tried a number of solutions with mixed success in the past. I introduced Scala based on the promises of performance, concurrency and type safety - and conciseness (especially with XML being a native data type in Scala). We've been running the Scala publishing daemons in production for most of two years. Generally they work pretty well but, under stress, they tend to hit Out of Memory exceptions and, after a lot of poking around, we became fairly convinced it was due (at least in part) to the default actor implementation in Scala. Scala is going to fold in Akka soon and we had been considering migrating to Akka anyone... But having introduced Clojure this year (after experimenting with it since about May last year), we figured we'd have a short spike to create a Clojure version of the Scala code to see how it worked out. It took about 15 hours to recreate the publishing daemon in Clojure and get it to pass all our tests. Today we ran a soak test publishing nearly 300,000 profiles in one run. The Scala code would fail with OoM exceptions if we hit it with 50,000 profiles in one run (sometimes less). The Clojure code sailed thru and is still happily running - so we'll be replacing the Scala code during our next production build. The other aspect that's interesting is that the Scala code totaled about 1,000 lines (about 31k characters of code). The Clojure replacement is just under 260 lines (around 11.5k characters of code). Neither code base has much in the way of comments (*ahem* - I'm not proud of that, just pointing out that there's no noise offsetting the code comparison). That doesn't include unit tests either, it's just the raw production code. The form of the Clojure code mostly follows the form of the Scala code, most of the same functions - it was very functional Scala - with some refactoring to helper functions to make it more modular and more maintainable. The net result is (obviously) that we'll be taking the Clojure publishing daemon to production and we'll be dropping Scala completely. Kudos to Rich Hickey and the Clojure/core team for creating a great general purpose language that can solve big problems - thank you! -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View --http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. --http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. --http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote
“Plan to throw one away.” -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Nathan Sorenson n...@sfu.ca wrote: I adore Clojure as well, but could this success not be partially due to the reimplementing for the second time phenomenon? i.e. if you re- wrote the entire thing in Scala again, perhaps you would see similar gains in brevity etc? Well, the Scala world has moved on quite a bit since 2009 so I could certainly make it somewhat more concise (I'd use the parallel collections in 2.9 instead of actors and I hope there's a better SQL abstraction by now so I could drop the ResultSet collection wrapper I wrote). I doubt I could reduce it by a factor of three which is what it would take to get close to the Clojure code. I don't know who posted it on HN but I see it's also on DZone and so it's generated a lot of noise out there and now I'm probably going to do a more detailed comparison and analysis to post on my blog, to answer some of the critical voices on HN... It was intended to be purely anecdotal but that doesn't seem to satisfy anyone! :) -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
Oh, it was just one, after all ? Please, don't tell this to my boss :-D 2011/9/13 Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de “Plan to throw one away.” -- 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
Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote
Hi, We have been running Clojure daemons 24/7 in prod. since Jan. 2009. We also considered Scala back in 2008. We could not agree more with your conclusions :) Luc P. On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:32:47 -0700 Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote: I just wanted to share this experience from World Singles... Back in November 2009, we started developing with Scala. We needed a long-running process that published large volumes of changes from our member database as XML packets published to a custom search engine. The mapping from half a dozen tables in the database to a flat XML schema was pretty complex and the company had tried a number of solutions with mixed success in the past. I introduced Scala based on the promises of performance, concurrency and type safety - and conciseness (especially with XML being a native data type in Scala). We've been running the Scala publishing daemons in production for most of two years. Generally they work pretty well but, under stress, they tend to hit Out of Memory exceptions and, after a lot of poking around, we became fairly convinced it was due (at least in part) to the default actor implementation in Scala. Scala is going to fold in Akka soon and we had been considering migrating to Akka anyone... But having introduced Clojure this year (after experimenting with it since about May last year), we figured we'd have a short spike to create a Clojure version of the Scala code to see how it worked out. It took about 15 hours to recreate the publishing daemon in Clojure and get it to pass all our tests. Today we ran a soak test publishing nearly 300,000 profiles in one run. The Scala code would fail with OoM exceptions if we hit it with 50,000 profiles in one run (sometimes less). The Clojure code sailed thru and is still happily running - so we'll be replacing the Scala code during our next production build. The other aspect that's interesting is that the Scala code totaled about 1,000 lines (about 31k characters of code). The Clojure replacement is just under 260 lines (around 11.5k characters of code). Neither code base has much in the way of comments (*ahem* - I'm not proud of that, just pointing out that there's no noise offsetting the code comparison). That doesn't include unit tests either, it's just the raw production code. The form of the Clojure code mostly follows the form of the Scala code, most of the same functions - it was very functional Scala - with some refactoring to helper functions to make it more modular and more maintainable. The net result is (obviously) that we'll be taking the Clojure publishing daemon to production and we'll be dropping Scala completely. Kudos to Rich Hickey and the Clojure/core team for creating a great general purpose language that can solve big problems - thank you! -- Luc P. The rabid Muppet -- 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: Deamons in Clojure (was Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote)
the lein-daemon plugin seems to do that Il giorno 07/set/2011 16.27, Marko Kocić marko.ko...@gmail.com ha scritto: While we are at this topic, how do you run Clojure deamons. Do you have some scripts to set it up how? Is there a simple way to daemonize lein project? Regards, Marko -- 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
Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 so the scala actors add much more overhead than the clojure equivalent? Am 07.09.2011 07:32, schrieb Sean Corfield: I just wanted to share this experience from World Singles... Back in November 2009, we started developing with Scala. We needed a long-running process that published large volumes of changes from our member database as XML packets published to a custom search engine. The mapping from half a dozen tables in the database to a flat XML schema was pretty complex and the company had tried a number of solutions with mixed success in the past. I introduced Scala based on the promises of performance, concurrency and type safety - and conciseness (especially with XML being a native data type in Scala). We've been running the Scala publishing daemons in production for most of two years. Generally they work pretty well but, under stress, they tend to hit Out of Memory exceptions and, after a lot of poking around, we became fairly convinced it was due (at least in part) to the default actor implementation in Scala. Scala is going to fold in Akka soon and we had been considering migrating to Akka anyone... But having introduced Clojure this year (after experimenting with it since about May last year), we figured we'd have a short spike to create a Clojure version of the Scala code to see how it worked out. It took about 15 hours to recreate the publishing daemon in Clojure and get it to pass all our tests. Today we ran a soak test publishing nearly 300,000 profiles in one run. The Scala code would fail with OoM exceptions if we hit it with 50,000 profiles in one run (sometimes less). The Clojure code sailed thru and is still happily running - so we'll be replacing the Scala code during our next production build. The other aspect that's interesting is that the Scala code totaled about 1,000 lines (about 31k characters of code). The Clojure replacement is just under 260 lines (around 11.5k characters of code). Neither code base has much in the way of comments (*ahem* - I'm not proud of that, just pointing out that there's no noise offsetting the code comparison). That doesn't include unit tests either, it's just the raw production code. The form of the Clojure code mostly follows the form of the Scala code, most of the same functions - it was very functional Scala - with some refactoring to helper functions to make it more modular and more maintainable. The net result is (obviously) that we'll be taking the Clojure publishing daemon to production and we'll be dropping Scala completely. Kudos to Rich Hickey and the Clojure/core team for creating a great general purpose language that can solve big problems - thank you! - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOZ6cgAAoJENRtux+h35aGsxoQAKAkmQb/8cxVsHSw1bH6mZjW Hoea0zi90eO2ds9Wk1wrFjtc0wfPPHdrp0FpZ3w1090BkwyKcRBj/iDM45sP4IY5 grc2I6vaRhfgIIVuaxgUt9HzTCbyjCOxk9xJHpCyY7sIfEIcFwNuzQWVHxgdqG/l CY/9mDe1Wex3rt2QxCSsUX/+yB5uXaxmAoX5m0jyEAmZzw/46+cVzZ8xMi9Gw1o/ mjI/mvpwTmdGcPkh7DamIEU8QjYbNBosgPWpNktJzmhtUaFdXhEMxdyDhldzUcJZ J8tZZkTWZoQqPfVdMPgfe1blDtV+nse8X2HDqed+Df42TU1YY+1VJ7e8jfr3vV62 cI+6SAqYTT91UC57GkmYKVOm01vNMpp98+fxaxBHUQi64tv/hIkWG4iHRgBCvncR hdIKfmzVwcPGrOZu6QT0RrVQzeEbz83+3l4CZQ7KOdL8k5vjd5b1T/LsPrQM1rod jDAn481tmpZKtSLe8+QbSakxfIFT9oTKUXbtDEEkN2CbJOkE4/EQwuCc/gnlo9Mr YPlPfx96JLxBfVq6JZ92VSdrpnEBS65HjKhWF587XjGjTqzYbbCNJIekwRdqga8e zkonzIj+IgnuZznV/fbKZ2yCEnO85TXoj0ZWUDnw0Ffvu2vUFvSF0ykR2BHxZBFD a1yhe/wr8AGyvIff6Hj8 =N1zz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Dennis Haupt d.haup...@googlemail.com wrote: so the scala actors add much more overhead than the clojure equivalent? The main problem is that the current implementation of actors in Scala suffers from known memory leaks and performance problems - problems that are completely addressed by Akka, which is why they're going to incorporate it and replace the current implementation. Our choices at World Singles were: migrate to Akka, wait for Scala 2.10 (which is when I think Akka will be folded in). Neither were appealing solutions. Migrating to Clojure was less work and more timely (for us). -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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: Deamons in Clojure (was Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote)
I have used jsvc in the past and found it to be a great tool. It allows you to configure which user the application runs as, and does proper detaching. It allows you to configure output streams and pid files to your liking. I have written some simple init scripts as well to make it very unix service like. All in all, I like it a lot more than lein daemon. Lein is a development and packaging tool. I wouldn't want it to be a dependency of my production systems. Cheers, Aaron Bedra -- Clojure/core http://clojure.com On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Bronsa brobro...@gmail.com wrote: the lein-daemon plugin seems to do that Il giorno 07/set/2011 16.27, Marko Kocić marko.ko...@gmail.com ha scritto: While we are at this topic, how do you run Clojure deamons. Do you have some scripts to set it up how? Is there a simple way to daemonize lein project? Regards, Marko -- 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 -- 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: Deamons in Clojure (was Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote)
Thanks for the tip about jsvc. I'll give it a try. Do you have some script examples to share, since having Linux service is exactly what I need? Thanks, Marko -- 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: Deamons in Clojure (was Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote)
On 09/07/2011 02:53 PM, Marko Kocić wrote: Thanks for the tip about jsvc. I'll give it a try. Do you have some script examples to share, since having Linux service is exactly what I need? Thanks, Marko I'll try and put together a few things including the code that implements the interface to get hooked up to jsvc. -- Cheers, Aaron Bedra -- Clojure/core http://clojure.com -- 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: Deamons in Clojure (was Re: Clojure vs Scala - anecdote)
On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:53:43 PM UTC-5, Marko Kocić wrote: Thanks for the tip about jsvc. I'll give it a try. Do you have some script examples to share, since having Linux service is exactly what I need? I strongly recommend Tanuki's wrapper over jsvc: http://wrapper.tanukisoftware.com/ It's better in every possible way, and will make your deployment life so much easier! It's something I would very much like to see as baked into to the JVM. If the GPL licensing is any concern (i.e., you need to distribute your product), YAJSW is somewhat Tanuki-compatible and also has an interesting architecture: http://yajsw.sourceforge.net/ -Tal -- 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 vs Scala - anecdote
Thanks for sharing Sean, very interesting! Ambrose -- 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 vs scala
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Emeka emekami...@gmail.com wrote: e, What is inspiring in it? H from time to time, people use percent literacy as a measure of public intellectual health, right? In that case, it's sort of obvious that literacy is a goal. Well, I'm wondering if we need to add a 4th fundamental to the 3 R's (Reading, Riting and 'Rithmetic) ... namely 'Rogramming. That opens up a lot of conversation. To summarize a paragraph that I just erase (was getting a little silly), to me Stuart's point is the same as to say that it is not the intent of poems (or even some good movies) to be understood completely, all at once, and right away. There are plenty of other worthwhile things in that category, too ... like perhaps clojure. Regards, Emeka On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, e evier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Stuart Halloway stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote: As the author of the book, you can bet I have an opinion on the quality of the docs. :-) (1) I think the documentation for Clojure (website, Mark Volkmann's long article [1], blog posts, the book [2]) is *insanely* good, given how young the language is. But... (2) If you are coming from a mainstream business software environment, there are a ton of new ideas in Clojure. There's more to learn, so of course it is going be harder, and take longer. You won't get there just by reading one book, even if you work through all the code examples. I *love* that Rich's recommended reading list [3] has not 2, or 4, but 36 books!! Clojure stands in opposition to the in 21 days for dummies [4] school of thought. (3) Scala's just as hard to learn, because it too is full of ideas that are new to many developers. I would love to see the 36-book list for learning Scala, and I bet there would be significant overlap. (4) I think the Clojure docstrings are ok, but could be improved by usage examples. Rich, are you interested in patches that simply add examples to docstrings? In short: if you are the median developer, both Clojure and Scala are huge improvements over the language you are using right now. But you won't be effective in either one of them tomorrow: the learning curve is not 1, but 5-10 books. So let's raise the bar. In the world I want to live in, programmers above the novice level would understand the ideas in both Clojure and Scala. Learn both. :-) Cheers, Stu [1] http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html [2] http://www.pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure [3] http://tinyurl.com/clojure-bookshelf [4] http://norvig.com/21-days.html awesome post. Inspiring. I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
http://www.pragprog.com/magazines/download/1.pdf Page 16 RH talks about Erlang and Scala vs Clojure in an interview I found it to be a very useful comparison --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
e, I just picked a new word 'Rogramming'? Regards, Emeka On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, e evier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Emeka emekami...@gmail.com wrote: e, What is inspiring in it? H from time to time, people use percent literacy as a measure of public intellectual health, right? In that case, it's sort of obvious that literacy is a goal. Well, I'm wondering if we need to add a 4th fundamental to the 3 R's (Reading, Riting and 'Rithmetic) ... namely 'Rogramming. That opens up a lot of conversation. To summarize a paragraph that I just erase (was getting a little silly), to me Stuart's point is the same as to say that it is not the intent of poems (or even some good movies) to be understood completely, all at once, and right away. There are plenty of other worthwhile things in that category, too ... like perhaps clojure. Regards, Emeka On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, e evier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Stuart Halloway stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote: As the author of the book, you can bet I have an opinion on the quality of the docs. :-) (1) I think the documentation for Clojure (website, Mark Volkmann's long article [1], blog posts, the book [2]) is *insanely* good, given how young the language is. But... (2) If you are coming from a mainstream business software environment, there are a ton of new ideas in Clojure. There's more to learn, so of course it is going be harder, and take longer. You won't get there just by reading one book, even if you work through all the code examples. I *love* that Rich's recommended reading list [3] has not 2, or 4, but 36 books!! Clojure stands in opposition to the in 21 days for dummies [4] school of thought. (3) Scala's just as hard to learn, because it too is full of ideas that are new to many developers. I would love to see the 36-book list for learning Scala, and I bet there would be significant overlap. (4) I think the Clojure docstrings are ok, but could be improved by usage examples. Rich, are you interested in patches that simply add examples to docstrings? In short: if you are the median developer, both Clojure and Scala are huge improvements over the language you are using right now. But you won't be effective in either one of them tomorrow: the learning curve is not 1, but 5-10 books. So let's raise the bar. In the world I want to live in, programmers above the novice level would understand the ideas in both Clojure and Scala. Learn both. :-) Cheers, Stu [1] http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html [2] http://www.pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure [3] http://tinyurl.com/clojure-bookshelf [4] http://norvig.com/21-days.html awesome post. Inspiring. I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On 26 Aug 2009, at 22:09, Jon Harrop wrote: That is true in principle, but integrating Lisp-style macros and compulsory static typing (as opposed to optional type hints) into the same language does require some careful thought. I haven't seen such a combination yet... I'm not sure what you regard as Lisp-style macros but you may be interested in OCaml's untyped Camlp4 macros and Template Haskell's typed macros. What I mean by Lisp-style macros is macros that are fully integrated into the language, and in particular that macros are implemented in the base language. This is not the case for Camlp4, which is a preprocessor that implements a macro language very different from OCaml itself. Template Haskell is in my opinion a nice example of the complexity that can result from making macros type-safe, though Haskell's non- trivial syntax also contributes to the complexity. Konrad. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
As the author of the book, you can bet I have an opinion on the quality of the docs. :-) (1) I think the documentation for Clojure (website, Mark Volkmann's long article [1], blog posts, the book [2]) is *insanely* good, given how young the language is. But... (2) If you are coming from a mainstream business software environment, there are a ton of new ideas in Clojure. There's more to learn, so of course it is going be harder, and take longer. You won't get there just by reading one book, even if you work through all the code examples. I *love* that Rich's recommended reading list [3] has not 2, or 4, but 36 books!! Clojure stands in opposition to the in 21 days for dummies [4] school of thought. (3) Scala's just as hard to learn, because it too is full of ideas that are new to many developers. I would love to see the 36-book list for learning Scala, and I bet there would be significant overlap. (4) I think the Clojure docstrings are ok, but could be improved by usage examples. Rich, are you interested in patches that simply add examples to docstrings? In short: if you are the median developer, both Clojure and Scala are huge improvements over the language you are using right now. But you won't be effective in either one of them tomorrow: the learning curve is not 1, but 5-10 books. So let's raise the bar. In the world I want to live in, programmers above the novice level would understand the ideas in both Clojure and Scala. Learn both. :-) Cheers, Stu [1] http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html [2] http://www.pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure [3] http://tinyurl.com/clojure-bookshelf [4] http://norvig.com/21-days.html I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
e, What is inspiring in it? Regards, Emeka On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, e evier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Stuart Halloway stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote: As the author of the book, you can bet I have an opinion on the quality of the docs. :-) (1) I think the documentation for Clojure (website, Mark Volkmann's long article [1], blog posts, the book [2]) is *insanely* good, given how young the language is. But... (2) If you are coming from a mainstream business software environment, there are a ton of new ideas in Clojure. There's more to learn, so of course it is going be harder, and take longer. You won't get there just by reading one book, even if you work through all the code examples. I *love* that Rich's recommended reading list [3] has not 2, or 4, but 36 books!! Clojure stands in opposition to the in 21 days for dummies [4] school of thought. (3) Scala's just as hard to learn, because it too is full of ideas that are new to many developers. I would love to see the 36-book list for learning Scala, and I bet there would be significant overlap. (4) I think the Clojure docstrings are ok, but could be improved by usage examples. Rich, are you interested in patches that simply add examples to docstrings? In short: if you are the median developer, both Clojure and Scala are huge improvements over the language you are using right now. But you won't be effective in either one of them tomorrow: the learning curve is not 1, but 5-10 books. So let's raise the bar. In the world I want to live in, programmers above the novice level would understand the ideas in both Clojure and Scala. Learn both. :-) Cheers, Stu [1] http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html [2] http://www.pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure [3] http://tinyurl.com/clojure-bookshelf [4] http://norvig.com/21-days.html awesome post. Inspiring. I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
RE (1) --- Agreed on all points. Clojure seems to have captured a large share of excitement and the effort put into the community documentation [1] is staggering and only set to get better. I liken the excitement behind Clojure to that behind Ruby (minus the drama). More and more people are falling in love with it, and that bodes well for everyone. RE (2) --- I love that Norvig essay. Recommended reading. RE (3) --- I think most new developers would get up and running with Scala a little faster because it's a fact that you can essentially write Java flavored code in Scala (this is the exact path that I started on). But that's counter to your point. To *really* learn Scala and its capabilities one has to dig pretty deep and wrap their head around some tricky topics. There are the developers who want to dig deeper, and those who do not -- it's the latter who will likely choose Scala over Clojure given the proverbial gun to the head scenario. But that kind of choice would occur based solely on superficial considerations; however the chickens of complexity [2] will come home to roost eventually. RE (4) --- If Rich gave the go ahead, I would be happy to contribute to that effort. RE 5-10 books --- Effectiveness is too subjective a term, but I think your point comes across. Really, the same point can be made about *any* programming language, especially if you desire to move past median developer status. I want to live in your world too, and I think we'll get there one day or another. Wild ideas like functional programming, closures, concurrency, etc... have too much steam right to be stopped. Developers have to realize that they *must* understand these topics or else they're going to be left behind. [1]: Except for the book of course; which was written solely with the millions of dollars in sales in mind. ;) [2]: Monster Manual v.1 pg. 42 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. From another thread I see that the api doc is being automated, so maybe this presents an opportunity to include a new meta tag such as :eg or :example (to allow them to be viewed separately from :doc - or if this is not a good idea maybe just appended to :doc) In the meantime this may be helpful: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming/Examples/API_Examples#-.3E Tom if I can help in any way please consider this a volunteerment :) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On 26 Aug 2009, at 07:06, Vagif Verdi wrote: I fail to see how macros can be contrasted to static typeng. They are orthogonal. That is true in principle, but integrating Lisp-style macros and compulsory static typing (as opposed to optional type hints) into the same language does require some careful thought. I haven't seen such a combination yet, and... Here's and example of statically typed language (liskell) with lisp syntax and full blown lisp macros: http://blog.clemens.endorphin.org/2009/01/liskell-standalone.html ...this site is down at the moment. One aspect to think about is the type of s-expressions. It needs to be defined as an algebraic data type with variants s-expression, symbol, string, number and perhaps more. Typed s-expressions will certainly change the style of macros, and without having seen it done in practice I wouldn't dare predict if it becomes, simpler, more difficult, or just different. The other obvious aspect is the syntax of type definitions and type specifications, and the interaction of type infererence with macro expansion. I'd expect a lots of subtleties that need to worked out in detail. For example, what happens if a macro expands into code that requires type inference to be correctly interpreted, but in a particular situation the compiler doesn't have enough information to infer all the types? The resulting error message could be quite a challenge to understand. Konrad. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
2009/8/26 Konrad Hinsen konrad.hin...@fastmail.net: On 26 Aug 2009, at 07:06, Vagif Verdi wrote: [...] Here's and example of statically typed language (liskell) with lisp syntax and full blown lisp macros: http://blog.clemens.endorphin.org/2009/01/liskell-standalone.html ...this site is down at the moment. I know pretty much nothing about liskell besides having heard the name. I can get to the above page. If you can't, try google cache: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:jYcV-llDETQJ:blog.clemens.endorphin.org/2009/01/liskell-standalone.html liskell.org appears to be broken, but I found this in google cache too: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:e0Ff03kCmRIJ:liskell.org/fifteen-minute-tour -- Michael Wood esiot...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:43 PM, npowellnathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 25, 4:36 pm, Christian Vest Hansen karmazi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he misrepresents both Scala and Clojure. ... Not a super helpful assessment. I'd like to hear more. What do you disagree with and why? Listed as a downer for Scala: Functional programming can be difficult to understand for a Java developer - same can be said for Clojure, so I think it is a similarity but he presents it as a difference. Another Scala downer: Scala is very powerful, some developers might shoot themselves into the foot - I don't see how this applies more to Scala than Clojure. If we want to talk about foot-shooting, we could talk about macros. There are some common mistakes that people with weak macro-fu do. Granted we can argue that people learn not to do these mistakes, but this learning still has to take place, and since the article is about which language to learn, I assume that this learning has yet to happen to these mentioned some developers. I would also like to mention the age-old dynamic vs. static typing debate because there's a twist to it here I'd like to point out: This is an assumption because I don't know Scala that well, but; I think it is harder to reason about performance and write fast code in Clojure than it is in Scala. I don't buy the no objects argument against Clojure. He links to Halloways rifle-programming article that presents object oriented using multimethods, so I presume he means no objects as in no ability to define classes and interfaces, but that is what gen-class, gen-interface and proxy are for. And new-new, at some point. I think Scala an advantage in this regard with native syntax for these concepts. I think the comparisons are inevitable, and knowing more about both helps developers make good choices. Your ideas about how to represent both languages would be valuable. They are at least provided above. I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. I'm no position to do an evenhanded (objective?) comparison - I don't know the languages well enough to do that. -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
Quick aside: There is now a doc directory in contrib, specifically for usage docs. There should be more examples coming in the future. On Aug 26, 1:18 am, ngocdaothanh ngocdaoth...@gmail.com wrote: I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:18 AM, ngocdaothanhngocdaoth...@gmail.com wrote: I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. Have you seen http://ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html? * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
In the meantime this may be helpful: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming/Examples/API_Example... Thank you, this is very helpful. * Clojure doc is hard to understand. Have you seen http://ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html? Yes I have, this may be the best Clojure doc on the Internet. I mean people are more attracted to Clojure than Scala if the Clojure doc is improved, and it is greatly improved if there are examples in the API doc (http://clojure.org/api). An example is worth a thousand words. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Aug 26, 5:29 am, Christian Vest Hansen karmazi...@gmail.com wrote: Another Scala downer: Scala is very powerful, some developers might shoot themselves into the foot - I don't see how this applies more to Scala than Clojure. If we want to talk about foot-shooting, we could talk about macros. There are some common mistakes that people with weak macro-fu do. Yes, we could talk about macros. The most common mistake that people make with macros (accidental symbol capture) is prevented by clojure fully qualifying names inside of syntax quote and preventing you from let 'ing a fully qualified name; a simple built-in syntax for auto- gensyms makes this easy to work with. IMHO, this is the best of both worlds between Scheme and Common Lisp macros. I think these language vs language discussions are mostly useful for finding out what the writer _doesn't_ know about the languages in question, myself included. For instance, after having read odersky's Scala book. . . if you like static typing and are looking for a new language, I don't see why you would choose Scala over Haskell unless you have a strong investment in java or really like the Lift web framework. Unrestricted use of vars, for instance, seems like a step backwards from the kind of guarantees a purely functional language gives you. On the other hand, if you like dynamic typing and lisp, Clojure has some distinct advantages over both Scheme and Common Lisp, eg macro example noted above. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
I didn't find that article particularly helpful, especially since I was facing the exact same decision just a year ago. For me, the difficulty of the language was the ultimate criteria I made me go with Clojure. Relative to Scala, Clojure is quite a bit easier to pickup. It has less syntax rules. I think most people wouldn't disagree with this. So the question was, does Scala's static typing with its more rigid syntax buy me something worthwhile? Do I see my productivity greatly improving as a result of Scala's static typing? For me the answer was no. So in the end, I decided the effort needed to understand Scala fully would not be worthwhile. -Patrick --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 08:35:49 Konrad Hinsen wrote: On 26 Aug 2009, at 07:06, Vagif Verdi wrote: I fail to see how macros can be contrasted to static typeng. They are orthogonal. That is true in principle, but integrating Lisp-style macros and compulsory static typing (as opposed to optional type hints) into the same language does require some careful thought. I haven't seen such a combination yet... I'm not sure what you regard as Lisp-style macros but you may be interested in OCaml's untyped Camlp4 macros and Template Haskell's typed macros. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 04:37:58 Alan Busby wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? Both are used in OCaml but static typing is, of course, far more common there because it is a core feature of the language. They really solve completely different problems. Static typing is used to improve performance, catch errors, provide a form of machine-verified documentation and convey information to the programmer in the IDE or REPL. Macros are used to extend the syntax of the language either for adding missing general features or for creating DSL. Additionally, OCaml's macro system is often used for general lexing and parsing or arbitrary syntaxes. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 21:43:56 npowell wrote: On Aug 25, 4:36 pm, Christian Vest Hansen karmazi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he misrepresents both Scala and Clojure. ... Not a super helpful assessment. I'd like to hear more. What do you disagree with and why? I think most of the article was vacuous, consisting mainly of verbatim quotes of contentless propaganda. Some of the statements are absurd, such as Clojure and Scala have big momentum. Java has big momentum. Clojure and Scala are struggling to reach the first rung on the ladder. For example, Scala has around 0.02% share of the job market here in the UK (!): http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/scala.do I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but that is not big momentum by any stretch of the imagination. What does Very clever immutable datastructures mean? How are Clojure's any more clever than the next implementation? What about [Scala has a] very powerful type system? Sounds like C++ has a Turing complete type system to me. Powerful != good when it comes to type systems. I have explained why I dislike Scala's type system (particularly its very poor type inference) before: http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages/msg/b7edd5f9e6ed0361 The biggest promise of Scala nevertheless is power and terseness. Compared to OCaml, Scala is verbose because it requires all of those unnecessary type definitions and annotations. Finally, the article failed to mention what is perhaps the single biggest concern about Scala: it is an academic language. Consequently, Scala will always be developed toward what is novel and not what is useful. At least for me, that is seriously off-putting. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Jon Harropj...@ffconsultancy.com wrote: What does Very clever immutable datastructures mean? How are Clojure's any more clever than the next implementation? My guess is that he was referring to how the data structures in Clojure are immutable and persistent (meaning that one can efficiently create new ones that represent modifications to existing ones where the new and old data structures share memory). The implementation of that, especially for hash maps, could be considered clever. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:18 AM, ngocdaothanh ngocdaoth...@gmail.comwrote: I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - That's funny! I picked on this exact one a bunch of times! I can't agree more. Thank you. On the other hand, are those forums as helpful as this one is? But going back to it, what's even funnier is that, once folks explained what this arrow thing did, it REALLY put me over the top for giving the language a break for a while. I'd say it's not for beginners. It's frustrating to have so many ways to do things all at once when all you want at first is ANY way that works. And the whole point is that there's only one thing to have to know, thanks to the parentheses. And then they invent this arrow thing? Fugetaboutit! No, seriously, I agree, but I think the philosophy seems to be that eventually you will learn it by asking people and/or trying stuff out, and then you can pass on what you learn to others. The community will get big and many people will write nice books and nice docs. You also, sort of, have to be a lisper to gain entry with some of the idioms. Like it seems like some things are held onto because they are the lisp way -- example: with-. That barely ever means anything to me. My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
Listed as a downer for Scala: Functional programming can be difficult to understand for a Java developer - same can be said for Clojure, so I think it is a similarity but he presents it as a difference. Wow. All the more reason for a Java developer to mess with it then! After all, Java doesn't (in general) preclude using a functional style so that would imply many Java programmers are missing an important tool in their arsenal. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
For instance, after having read odersky's Scala book. . . if you like static typing and are looking for a new language, I don't see why you would choose Scala over Haskell unless you have a strong investment in java or really like the Lift web framework. Unrestricted use of vars, for instance, seems like a step backwards from the kind of guarantees a purely functional language gives you. If one likes Haskell over Scala and needs Java, is this a fine option? http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JASKELL/Home http://jaskell.codehaus.org/Using+Jaskell http://jaskell.codehaus.org/ or maybe http://jhaskell.sourceforge.net/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
We looked at Scala in summer 2008... we were very tired of data typing in general and OOP (specifically Java). We did not find any comfort in Scala regarding these aspects. Concurrencent processing in Scala did not enthusiast us either. We wanted a significant code compression factor compared to equivalent Java code, Scala provided some improvements compared to Java but we gave more value to a Lisp like macro implementation, it's more flexible and allows us to compress our code at will and give any form we want. When we found Clojure, we tossed Scala away with no after thoughts. Absence of data typing, a good macro implementation and ease of use of concurrency made us very happy at the time and we are still happy today about our decision. All of the above may be a matter of taste, at some point in my professional life, I would like to work with tools of my choice that fit with my mood than wearing straight jackets to please my customers... Luc Préfontaine Armageddon was yesterday, today we have a real problem... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
clojure vs scala
Hello All, This sounds great! http://codemonkeyism.com/clojure-scala-part-2/ Regards, Emeka --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
Plus, his spelling and grammar is atrocious. If you're going to write a blog, proofread what you're writing! (I know this is harder for non-English speakers, but it does make a huge difference to the perceived quality of what you're saying.) On Aug 25, 1:36 pm, Christian Vest Hansen karmazi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he misrepresents both Scala and Clojure. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Emekaemekami...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All, This sounds great! http://codemonkeyism.com/clojure-scala-part-2/ Regards, Emeka -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
I think he misrepresents both Scala and Clojure. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Emekaemekami...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All, This sounds great! http://codemonkeyism.com/clojure-scala-part-2/ Regards, Emeka -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Aug 25, 4:36 pm, Christian Vest Hansen karmazi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he misrepresents both Scala and Clojure. ... Not a super helpful assessment. I'd like to hear more. What do you disagree with and why? I think the comparisons are inevitable, and knowing more about both helps developers make good choices. Your ideas about how to represent both languages would be valuable. I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
On Aug 25, 7:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? I fail to see how macros can be contrasted to static typeng. They are orthogonal. Here's and example of statically typed language (liskell) with lisp syntax and full blown lisp macros: http://blog.clemens.endorphin.org/2009/01/liskell-standalone.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 vs scala
I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure and Scala to study as a new language. I must say that both are bad: * Clojure doc is hard to understand. * Scala grammar is complicated. I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and clojure- contrib. For example, what does the following mean? - (- x form) (- x form more) Macro Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in second form, etc. - My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of every API function. On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby thebu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell nathan.pow...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different situations and why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
