Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- From: André Thieme <address.good.until.2009.may.11@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:39:14 +0100
Scott Burson schrieb:
On Feb 18, 9:21 am, "Mark H." <mark.hoem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Feb 9, 11:30 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In 25 words or less, why is Clojure better than Common Lisp?Seqs partake of some of the awesomeness of SERIES, but are easier to
use and more native to functional programming.
One more time, I can't resist... ;-}
http://common-lisp.net/project/fset/
Yes, not bad.
But I doubt someone could use this after having used Clojure.
It misses the nice reader macros.
It does not plug in into CL. For example one has to use image
instead of mapcar.
What about REST, LENGTH working on fsets?
There is a do-map, do-seq, do-set, ... instead of just one
thing to do them all.
Examples such as
(isetq m6 (with-default (map ('a (set 1)) ('b (set 2))) (set)))
#{| (A #{ 1 }) (B #{ 2 }) |}/#{ }
(isetq m7 (with-default (map ('b (set "x")) ('c (set "y"))) (set)))
#{| (B #{ "x "}) (C #{" y" }) |}/#{ }
look unreadable and cryptic to me.
Performance wise.. not sure. Rich Hickey spent a good bit of time
to make the concurrency ready Clojure data structures pretty fast.
Most importantly: Fset lacks a STM and MVCC.
But Fset has Bags while Clojure doesn’t.
André
--
Lisp is not dead. It’s just the URL that has changed:
http://clojure.org/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- From: Scott Burson
- Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- From: Russell McManus
- Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- References:
- Road to Clojure Survey
- From: Kenneth Tilton
- Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- From: Mark H.
- Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- From: Scott Burson
- Road to Clojure Survey
- Prev by Date: Re: Road to Clojure Survey 2.0
- Next by Date: Re: question about Clojure immutable structures
- Previous by thread: Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- Next by thread: Re: Road to Clojure Survey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|