On 18 Jan 2010, at 11:23, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
On 18.01.2010, at 12:03, Alex Ott wrote:
I have a question to Rich - are there plans to introduce "named"
loop/recur? In Scheme it very handy to create named let, and
create nested
loops. Currently in Clojure, I need to split nested loop
On 29 Dec 2009, at 04:14, jim wrote:
> Had an interesting conversation with a programmer friend of mine. He's
> skeptical of my Lisp leanings and mostly sticks to the 'normal'
> languages; C++, Java, etc.
>
> I made that comment that pretty much all the languages derived from
> Algol like the C
On 20 Dec 2009, at 19:30, Luc Préfontaine wrote:
> That's a concise and clear way to summarize the issue.
>
> If you compare the IDE support required for different languages, the support
> required to write syntactically correct Clojure code is pretty small compared
> to others.
I like Clojur
On 20/12/2009 5:39 PM, Richard Newman wrote:
>> It's better if we can support both. It's never one size fits all.
>
> Who is "we"?
>
> If you're talking about something *you* want, you can go build it…
>
I see Clojure is well on the way to building a community at least as
repellingly exclusionary
On 20 Dec 2009, at 06:51, ajay gopalakrishnan wrote:
> Yes, Martin, please give it a try. Only then can we know if the parenthesis
> is real issue or not. There is no point arguing about it. The only
> disadvantage is that, over time, people will forget that it is actually a
> list. But, hey,
On 20 Dec 2009, at 07:27, ajay gopalakrishnan wrote:
> Precedence is an overrated thing. You dont run into that issue every day.
Yeah, only every time you write a simple mathematical expression. And how often
does that happen when you're programming?!
Martin
--
You received this message bec
>
>
>
> As for Ten parentheses, i do not see a single one. Noone notices
> starting parens because they are markers saying "this is a function".
> And of course noone notices ending parens because they are for your
> IDE, not for the human.
This is I like, I'd never thought about S-exprs this
>
> I guess it's mostly a matter of judging a language by its long-term
> merits instead of initial appearance -- just like with so many other
> things in life.
>
That - right there - is a tacit admission that the Clojure community will find
it actively desirable that it remain a minority langu
On 19 Dec 2009, at 13:50, Stefan Kamphausen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18 Dez., 20:07, Martin Coxall wrote:
>> One of the things that always puts people off of Lisp, as we all know, are
>> the parentheses.
>
> one of the things that always put Lispers off is this same
>
>
> It is proudly a Lisp for people that want to get things done. Any
> Java/.NET/Python/Brainfuck/Ruby/Basic/C/C++ (No Perlmongers :)) that
> want to get better are welcome. However, there is a way things are
> done in the language, driven by the underlying problems reality
> imposes on deve
On 19 Dec 2009, at 00:53, Sean Devlin wrote:
> What you're looking for is called "Python".
>
> The parens are your friend. Learn to love them. They are there to
> remind you that you're building a data structure, not just writing
> code.
>
> Sean
>
As it happens, I agree with you: I learned
On 19 Dec 2009, at 00:29, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> The main downside of such an approach is that if you copy and paste
> your code to a new context in which it has a different level of
> indenting, it's very easy to screw things up. You then have no way to
> re-indent the code without fully analy
I had this thought at work, when I should have been working, so please bear
with me if it's nonsense.
One of the things that always puts people off of Lisp, as we all know, are the
parentheses. Now, many ways have been suggested of doing this in other Lisps,
but have never taken off, mainly due
On 18 Dec 2009, at 06:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:44:02 -0500
> Luc Préfontaine wrote:
>
>> Mike, I think that the whole issue about Lisp creates a big cloud
>> about
>> Clojure.
>
> Yes, it does. When I mention that, people tend to shudder.
That's the price Clojure pays
On 17 Dec 2009, at 10:04, Dmitry Kakurin 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" g
Tim Bray starts with the delightfull forthright "Clojure is the best
Lisp ever!" and then goes on to explain why the JVM's current lack of
hard tail calls don't matter.
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/12/01/Clojure-Theses
Interesting, and certainly confirms my own prejudices about Clo
On Nov 25, 2:59 pm, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> On 25.11.2009, at 15:32, jim wrote:
>
> > That's exactly what it is. I used the continuation monad from
> > clojure.contrib.monads. After I get the code out, I'll be writing a
> > tutorial on how it works which will also explain the continuation
> > mon
On Nov 25, 2:32 pm, jim wrote:
> Graham,
>
> That's exactly what it is. I used the continuation monad from
> clojure.contrib.monads.
Mention it on the website, and you instantly win +50 bonus Web 2.0
points for buzzword-compliance. Congraturation!
> After I get the code out, I'll be writing a
18 matches
Mail list logo
