News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by bitwize on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:51PM (#12501098)
Clojure has neither the cool constructs of CL (CLOS, conditions) nor the minimal design and fantastic set of control primitives of Scheme. In fact it has no significant advantage over Scheme aside from running on the JVM, and a few disadvantages (recur, why TF are lambda lists vectors?, etc.). It's different enough to be weird and annoying, but the differences aren't advantageous enough to make me want to switch: Scheme (and CL!) has been made to run efficiently on the JVM (with some caveats, which Clojure has also!).
Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by dkersten on Thursday September 15, 2016 @12:41PM (#12507626)
recur

I actually really like recur because it signifies intent. It tells the future-me that I intended for this function to be tail recursive (ie, it not being tail-recursive should be considered an error).

Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by wtetzner on Thursday September 15, 2016 @05:15PM (#12509882)
It does, but it's still too weak, e.g. it only works if the function is calling itself.
Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by xiaomai on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @06:21PM (#12501706)
I mostly agree with you, but I think the out-of-the-box immutable data structures and sugar around around maps are very nice compared to the out-of-the-box scheme/racket experience.
Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by riboflava on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @06:42PM (#12501826)
I'm a fan of the out of the box immutable data structures and like the sugar, though you can get both in Lisp if you want. (Presumably Racket as well.) Lisp has everything, and more, though sometimes you have to work for it. I do enjoy Clojure's interop with the JVM, but that along with the community producing interesting things (this includes ClojureScript) are the primary reasons I care about Clojure at all. On the nice-to-work-with side of things I really enjoy that it was designed by one person rather than a standards committee from decades ago, it feels fresh working with it, but if you stranded me on an island and gave me one language to have for the rest of time I'd pick Lisp for its power.
Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by technomancy on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:21PM (#12502654)
> you can get both in Lisp if you want

The whole point of benefiting from immutable data structures is their ubiquity. If they're something you reach for only when you personally decide you need them, they're unlikely to work well with 3rd-party code; you will have to do a lot more digging to understand how the code you're writing will behave in a concurrent context vs having it be obvious. Making it opt-in is almost making it pointless, unless you never use 3rd-party code.

Re:Haskell vs. Clojure (2014) by catnaroek on Thursday September 15, 2016 @03:28AM (#12504074)
Is it possible to make truly persistent data structures in Lisp, rather than just persistent by convention? Here are some benefits that you can only get if the language implementation knows your data structures are immutable:

(0) The compiler can automatically perform optimizations like fusing small nodes and hash consing.

(1) The garbage collector can take advantage of the fact that traversing (the immutable portion of) the heap sequentially produces a topological sorting of the object graph.