tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post1665331278706544944..comments2024-01-07T23:21:32.676+01:00Comments on The Axis of Eval: Why I ignore ClojureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post-24139954146190485102019-08-08T04:24:23.346+02:002019-08-08T04:24:23.346+02:00Lisp invented destructuring-bind and pattern match...Lisp invented destructuring-bind and pattern matching, yet, everyone goes on using car/cdr... which unfortunately can not be made parallel... Also John Mcarthy himself said that he wanted the let syntax to be like Clojure's. aoeu256https://www.blogger.com/profile/16123595678632117502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post-80028270180626725572014-07-12T22:07:56.480+02:002014-07-12T22:07:56.480+02:00What an utter retard! It's an old post I know ...What an utter retard! It's an old post I know but you, sir, are a complete and utter retard. Please stay away from programming languages.z0ltannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post-28582690764975813022013-09-10T20:23:32.061+02:002013-09-10T20:23:32.061+02:00This response i probably 4 years too late for the ...This response i probably 4 years too late for the person who claimed they could not do backtracking in Common Lisp. As with many Lisp features, backtracking is not "native". Instead you can choose when and how you wish to do backtracking.<br /><br />In fact Common Lisp backtracking goes to 11...<br /><br />http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/code/ext/screamer/0.html<br />patrickdloganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09030151653908100586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post-11481684519507525422013-09-09T23:01:12.311+02:002013-09-09T23:01:12.311+02:00It's wrong on so many levels I don't even ...It's wrong on so many levels I don't even know if I should start. Probably I shouldn't. Just try to critic it yourself for at least 5 minutes, by timer..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398086177221704043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post-40280741639658192882013-07-30T12:21:54.494+02:002013-07-30T12:21:54.494+02:00If the Lisp community embraces all really useful i...If the Lisp community embraces all really useful ideas, then explain to me why Common Lisp doesn't have continuations.<br /><br />Backtracking, for instance, is a very useful method, but if I want a language that supports it I need Scheme or Prolog (from 1971 even!) or something from that family.<br /><br />I'm currently working in scheme, and while I find the language as a whole good. I don't think I've ever been so productive, I must say that I'm very disappointed with the state of macros in Scheme. The pattern matching system is weak, the pattern variables are not real variables, they're opaque. And if you need to break hygiene you have to use a horrible horrible API, when a well designed system could have just explicitly notated what sort of variable use you needed and could have used normal variables and objects to do it.<br /><br />You say Lisp moves slowly, but there's such a thing as too slow.Joshua Scholarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722310642266356003.post-17223378139143433192010-09-20T15:53:07.286+02:002010-09-20T15:53:07.286+02:00Your Linus quote nails it: Clojure helps a lot to ...Your Linus quote nails it: Clojure helps a lot to do good things well. Common Lisp has some roadblocks on that path :( at least for me.<br /><br />I know Common Lisp after I learned Clojure, and I think both have their value. Just Clojure is the practical oriented programming language I always dreamed of, and Common Lisp is the standardization of a theoretical effort with a lot of new stuff coming in slowly these days, but lacking the coherence and practical tools necessary for quick and good development.<br /><br />For me, Common Lisp is just too big with too many things missing... Clojure cuts down the bullshit and concentrates on the stuff you need at work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com