@mdallastella I don't find the article too convincing and the argument too be pretty weak. It misses several important points of Lisp (code is data) and Clojure in particular entirety (prefer data over code, immutability, STM.

Now, if he helps to make more people interested in Clojure and raise the acceptance for it, it's still great, of course. But given that his reputation has suffered quite a bit, I'm not sure about this either.

@schaueho @mdallastella I don't like the article much. As you mentioned he he doesn't touch on the things that make Lisp great. He also brings up an example that is very terse, but really, if terseness was everything then we'd all be programming APL. And I like APL.

It somehow feels to me that the only reason the author prefers Clojure over Common Lisp is because the function names are shorter in Clojure.

@loke @schaueho @mdallastella Clojure helps with Java developers adoption, since your knowledge of the libraries is still useful. For someone with his background, Clojure is the most appealing lisp.

@hugoestr @loke @mdallastella Of course, if you know Java, you can make good use of that know how when going to Clojure. I had Common Lisp know how, but not a lot of Java, so my motivation was exactly the other way around. Nothing of this is discussed as important in the article, however.

@schaueho @hugoestr @loke Telling the truth, it's a reprise of an old article from Uncle Bob's previous blog:

thecleancoder.blogspot.com/201

In this 9 years he spoke a lot about Clojure, it's not the first time. Anyway I think his goal was to explain why he choose Clojure, not to make a deep comparison between Clojure and $LANGUAGE.

The blog post (it's not really an "article") isn't really informational, it's just nice to know that someone with his experience has choose Clojure.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Functional Café

functional.cafe is an instance for people interested in functional programming and languages.