Using Clojure for Web Apps

Post by lgessler » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #50

lgessler wrote: post #33

Some of my favorite Clojure libraries in this space: - instaparse: takes EBNF (and other formats) as a string and gives you a parser instantly (!!!) https://github.com/Engelberg/instaparse - re-frame: React-Redux alternative that IMO is much easier to work with https://github.com/day8/re-frame - reagent: React wrapper https://reagent-project.github.io/ - ring https://github.com/ring-clojure/ring - fulcro https://gith…

> desirable in most CS curricula. most of the alogrithms and datastructures that you learn in CS were developed using mutability. I am not sure that we can even develop immutable equivalents for most of them with similar time/space complexities.

Post by currentoor » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

Post by kgwxd » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

defined wrote: post #23

bloopernova wrote: post #20

I've been slowly learning Lisp to hack on Emacs, org-mode and org-babel. Main goal being to turn AWS JSON data into org-mode headings and org-babel data to do further work on. Very much a side project and I'm a bear of very little brain, so it's taking me a long long time. Seeing Clojure and other Lisp stuff in the wild gives me hope that I can lean on enough people's documentation and source that I can eventually le…

> I know some folks sneer a little at Lisp I wonder why. Some developers I know and hold in high regard have almost venerated Lisp, so I've always thought there must be something to it. I just thought it wasn't something you could actually use IRL, but I was wrong. I found this out when I was recently motivated to learn Clojure, and now I am starting to grok their admiration.

Post by kgwxd » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

wostusername wrote: post #62

blunte wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clojure has the same number of parens as Javascript, C/C++, Java, and similar languages have parens+squiggle-brackets. (print "foo") vs print("foo"). same same. There's so much more to it than this. I can say without reservation that people who do not take a couple/few weeks to learn a Lisp just do not know what they are missing, and their arguments against it are viewed as children who lack enough experience to know…

>(print "foo") vs print("foo"). same same. If you look at things other than function calls, it starts to look different: let x = 5, y = 10 foo(x,y) vs (let [x 5 y 10] (foo x y)) I actually like Lisps and think the S expression syntax is one of their best features, but I'm not going to pretend there are the same number of brackets in Lisps as there are in C family languages.

Post by wostusername » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

kgwxd wrote: post #67

wostusername wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(print "foo") vs print("foo"). same same. If you look at things other than function calls, it starts to look different: let x = 5, y = 10 foo(x,y) vs (let [x 5 y 10] (foo x y)) I actually like Lisps and think the S expression syntax is one of their best features, but I'm not going to pretend there are the same number of brackets in Lisps as there are in C family languages.

The first example is missing the scope brackets likely enclosing the expressions, and there should probably be a few semi-colons.

    fun bar () {
      let x = 5,
          y = 10
      foo(x,y)
    }

    (defn bar []
      (let [x 5 
            y 10]
        (foo x y)))