undefined | Better HN

0 pointsj-pb6y ago0 comments

Yeah but it's neither encouraged nor fundamental. Whereas most common lisp code heavily emphasized loops and methods in an impure way. CL is a systems programming language, while clojure always feels like a tool for tought, in the APL sense.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

pjmlp6y ago· 2 in thread

With that line of thought, C++ is a safe systems programming language.

The features are there and everyone is free to use them, and I am yet to see a Clojure linter against using those features.

In fact, Clojure cannot interop with its host platforms without doing any kind of OOP.

j-pbOP6y ago

You'd be surprised how well a common philosophy in the community keeps everything nice and tidy. If you look at old clojure libraries like Incanter which were still heavily influenced by CL they're nothing like recently developed ones.

The preferred way of doing things is like this: Data > Functions > Interop > Macros.

Clojure discourages mutability and side effects. CL embraces them, it doesn't even have immutable datatypes, let alone sane deep equality.

I don't see how C++ is relevant since even Rust has unsafe.

pjmlp6y ago

It is relevant, because the unsafe features are still there, regardless how many use them, language culture and what not.

Likewise Clojure contains the main features of CLOS and makes use of them to interop with JavaScript, Java and C#, regardless how many in the community make use of it.

A language is made by the language specification and its standard library, not by whatever the community feels as trendy.

Present us a full compliant Clojure implementation minus CLOS, and lets see how far it goes.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse