Comments on: Lisp50 Notes part VI: The Future of Lisp

By: Elias Amaral

Elias Amaral — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:17:58 +0000

you wanted.. arc?

By: Dan Weinreb

Dan Weinreb — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:04:37 +0000

At the International Lisp Conference, I’m going to see to it that Rich Hickey has plenty of time to discuss Clojure in detail and take extensive questions. So if you’ve missed his talk in the past, you can see the best version of it in March. See ilc09.org and I hope I’ll be seeing you there.

By: Autodidact » Blog Archive » Some notes on Clojure

Autodidact » Blog Archive » Some notes on Clojure — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:39:49 +0000

[...] capped by a presentation by its inventor at the end of the Lisp50 program at OOPSLA. Lispy has a good recounting of Hickey’s talk on his blog. There’s interest in forming a study group here in the DC area, under the [...]

By: Lisp’s 50th birthday « Strange Quark’s

Lisp’s 50th birthday « Strange Quark’s — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:43:53 +0000

[...] to name a few. As for the future, it’s always uncertain. Here are some notes about the future of Lisp from the OOPSLA Lisp50 session, which suggests that Clojure may be a big part of that. Next [...]

By: Uncle T

Uncle T — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:08:18 +0000

Does anyone else hate the :keyword syntax? If :foo is shorthand for namespace:foo (where “namespace” is the default keyword namespace) couldn’t lexers be smart and instead use foo: to recognize keywords? I think (function key1: 1 key2: 2) is far more pleasant than (function :key1 1 :key2 2). I mean is lisp trying to imitate forth’s RPN or something?

By: gnuvince

gnuvince — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:10:15 +0000

Rob Meyers: Yes it’s possible, although most people quickly learn to love the syntactic sugar.

{:a 1, :b 2} => (hash-map :a 1 :b 2)
[1 2 3] => (vector 1 2 3)
#{1 2 3} => (set (list 1 2 3))

By: Rob Myers

Rob Myers — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:56:08 +0000

Thanks. I don’t have to target the JVM but if I did I can certainly see the advantage.

By: lispy

lispy — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:23:57 +0000

There simply wasn’t time to get into that. The focus was on how (while sacrificing many cool things about Common Lisp that are hard to give up, sure) you get the benifit of massive libraries, JVM research, and also take get to take advantage of the “hot” concurrency idiom. If you can do your job in Common Lisp, then I don’t think Hickey wants to take that away from you– he’d probably do it himself, all other things being equal. The “killer ap” of clojure is that you can program in Lisp and the “suits” need never know– you just drop in a jar file and it looks like regular java code to everyone else.

By: Rob Myers

Rob Myers — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:46:59 +0000

What answers did Hicky have for those of us who prefer Common Lisp because of the regular syntax and the absence of syntactic sugar? Is it possible to write Clojure code without making bracket soup?

By: lispy

lispy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:39:59 +0000

Oh, that’s bad. Not as bad as “per say”, but still pretty bad.

Fixed.