11–20 of 55 posts
Clojure is beautiful and elegant. If not for it's lack of popularity and necessity of keeping up with JS constantly, it would be my most used language especially on side projects. Clojure is one of my favorite languages. If they get the stack traces/better errors figured out, it will be damn near perfect IMO.
The Clojure code is shorter, but that's almost entirely because it's dynamically typed. And that's not necessarily a benefit, either. Cheshire just takes JSON and turns it into plain old Clojure data (maps, vectors, strings or keywords, etc.) whereas Aeson requires the programmer to manually unroll the whole structure from top to bottom into user-defined types. But by doing so it guarantees that if something is missi…
The Clojure code is shorter, but that's almost entirely because it's dynamically typed. And that's not necessarily a benefit, either. Cheshire just takes JSON and turns it into plain old Clojure data (maps, vectors, strings or keywords, etc.) whereas Aeson requires the programmer to manually unroll the whole structure from top to bottom into user-defined types. But by doing so it guarantees that if something is missi…
The Clojure code is shorter, but that's almost entirely because it's dynamically typed. And that's not necessarily a benefit, either. Cheshire just takes JSON and turns it into plain old Clojure data (maps, vectors, strings or keywords, etc.) whereas Aeson requires the programmer to manually unroll the whole structure from top to bottom into user-defined types. But by doing so it guarantees that if something is missi…
hmm still unsure what the types win me then
If you just want to get shit done, Clojure is fine (though any other Lisp would arguably be better than Clojure). If you want to get shit done, and make sure the types are correct, and make sure all side effects are properly managed and accounted for, that's Haskell's niche.
Dont Clojure's immutable types handle the side-effect issues well? Without the contortions that Haskell puts you through.
If you just want to get shit done, Clojure is fine (though any other Lisp would arguably be better than Clojure). If you want to get shit done, and make sure the types are correct, and make sure all side effects are properly managed and accounted for, that's Haskell's niche.
> ... Clojure is fine (though any other Lisp would arguably be better than Clojure). Care to elaborate why you think any other Lisp is better than Clojure? I would like to hear your arguments.
* TIMTOWTDI. Doing everything with map/reduce/filter is great, but sometimes it's more direct to just use the LOOP macro. Immutability is great, but sometimes it's way faster to just SETF something (and not have to worry about atoms).
* Batteries (more) included. IME, I find myself needing to use third-party libraries sooner with Clojure than with CL. Also, QuickLisp is arguably faster to get rolling with than Leiningen (I've found it easier to get the new library into my existing lisp image). And CL tends to have clusters of functions that do similar-but-different things, whereas Clojure puts the cognitive burden on you to do things right (example off the top of my head: CL has REMOVE, REMOVE-IF, and REMOVE-IF-NOT, Clojure has ????? (like ten different ways, I'm serious), `(filter pred list)`, and `(filter (complement pred) list)`).
* The debugging situation is fantastic. Both because CL deals with errors a lot more gracefully than Clojure (are we allowed to blame the JVM?) and because SLIME >>> CIDER, at least for now.
If you just want to get shit done, Clojure is fine (though any other Lisp would arguably be better than Clojure). If you want to get shit done, and make sure the types are correct, and make sure all side effects are properly managed and accounted for, that's Haskell's niche.
> ... Clojure is fine (though any other Lisp would arguably be better than Clojure). Care to elaborate why you think any other Lisp is better than Clojure? I would like to hear your arguments.