> As for the coding style, we are not maniacs, later we intend to run the
> code in a formater to standardize.
> We use LISP style naming conventions (hyphens in names, +constant+.
> *global-var*,...)
While we are at it, I would like to know if there are any Clojure/Lisp
formatter which re-indent
It's along the lines that we follow. Declaring the public functions
first however forces you to use
a declare statement for all the private functions used by your public
API.
We use section comments to split the module (constants, global defs,
private functions, public ones, ...)
and keep the publ
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Lauri Pesonen wrote:
>
> 2009/8/8 Luc Prefontaine :
>
> > I totally agree no comments is not good at all but JavaDoc style comments
> in
> > Clojure ? I pray you all, please stay away of it :
>
> I was quite taken by this scheme style guide recently:
>
> http:
2009/8/8 Luc Prefontaine :
> I totally agree no comments is not good at all but JavaDoc style comments in
> Clojure ? I pray you all, please stay away of it :
I was quite taken by this scheme style guide recently:
http://mumble.net/~campbell/scheme/style.txt
While I don't agree with all th
A bit of history (or archaeology ?)
We are now back to the old times were we used to struggle about comments
in the code.
When I started coding, code was "self-understandable" according to the
legend, especially assembly code.
If you could not understand the code without comments, you did not eve
As a Noob to clojure, one thing that scares me is the comment-to-code
ratio. I mean, the meaning that can be packed into clojure can be
immense, which is great, but it seems like that means that a lack of
commenting is all the more dire of a problem. The best commented
clojure code that I've see
Thanks for all the responses, both on the list and off.
Many good counter-arguments were given, but I think the most compelling one
was the issue of Java-interop. Without a doubt, at least some knowledge of
Java is necessary to really do much of anything interesting. It's
unfortunate that such a
On Aug 6, 3:22 am, Lauri Pesonen wrote:
> There was a post recently on LtU about a paper by Matthias Felleisen
> et al. (of Little Schemer fame) about a functional teaching language
> that they've been using in schools and freshman classes to teach kids
> how to program. I'm still reading it, but
Seth,
2009/8/6 Seth :
>
> I hope that learning a Lisp first is a good idea for novice
> programmers, because I intend to inflict Clojure on my poor children.
> (They didn't take to http://scratch.mit.edu/ and Google's rehash of
> BASIC is a non-starter).
There was a post recently on LtU about a
On Aug 5, 2:44 pm, John Newman wrote:
> First of all, sorry that this post is so long-winded. I don't have a blog,
> so this seems like the best place to put to words something I've been
> thinking about for a while.
>
> One subject I haven't seen discussed is that o
were my reasons finally against teaching Clojure as a first
language.---
-Immutability. I think for a beginner, mutability is easier to
understand. Immutable data structures are quite a bit more
complicated, but most importantly, their advantages are not seen by
someone who has never programmed b
How you teach programming depends a lot on the student. Clojure is a
good choice for many students, but not all of them.
I come from an electrical engineering background, and when I was in
school they taught me C & assembly (on the 6800). This was a very
important experience, because I now have
First of all, sorry that this post is so long-winded. I don't have a blog,
so this seems like the best place to put to words something I've been
thinking about for a while.
One subject I haven't seen discussed is that of Clojure as a "first
language." By that I mean,
13 matches
Mail list logo
