Why Clojure? (2010)

Re:Why Clojure? (2010) by watt on Friday December 30, 2016 @04:23AM (#13283440)

Well, isn't this nice - outsourcing the knowledge what makes Sazerac, and how to make it to somebody else, and just declaring that you want it?

Would you mind actually making Sazerac in your FP "analogy" as well?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Clojure? (2010) by virmundi on Friday December 30, 2016 @10:24AM (#13284754)

I like Clojure, but stopped using it due to not having a good way to define DTOs at a service level (I prefer noisy statically typed languages apparently). Best guess.

  (-> {}
    ice
    (rye :2-fingers)
    bitters
    absinthe
    shake
    strain
    garnish)

Now I think that strain flipped the returned type from drink to a glass with the drink.

All this shows is that OO and FP are duals [1]. I don't claim to get FP perfectly, but my moment of zen was realizing this.

1 - http://wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Clojure? (2010) by doublerebel on Friday December 30, 2016 @11:49PM (#13289551)

Thank you, I had not seen that c2 page. Many in the JavaScript community have fervent arguments for/against closures/objects (which I do not share). The educated debate in that link is a quality resource on the subject.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Clojure? (2010) by sankyo on Saturday December 31, 2016 @12:31AM (#13289655)

forgot the sugar!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Clojure? (2010) by throwaway7645 on Friday December 30, 2016 @07:24AM (#13284025)

Haha...didn't think so many people would respond. There is a Lisp example below. F# is similar, but with pipes and arrows.

[ Parent | on HN ]