Fork me on GitHub
#admin-announcements
<
2015-06-08
>
andrei08:06:53

@andrevdm: I checked LFE is a bit older and has more github stars but Joxta is not far in following mainly since is much younger. What I like about joxta is that it shares a bit of the clojure syntax

andrevdm09:06:23

@andrei: Joxa like Clojure is a LISP-1, LFE is a LISP-2

andrevdm09:06:32

that may be part of the similarity

andrevdm09:06:58

After looking a bit more it seems like both are pretty solid implementations

andrevdm09:06:18

I guess then it comes down to preference then, which is great news simple_smile

placeboza09:06:04

similarity with LISP-1 vs LISP-2 ? like syntax? isn't the main visual difference with LISP-2 just that you can use the same name for a function and a variable at the same time (different namespace) ?

placeboza09:06:18

can't imagine that's visually that different... but then I know little about this

placeboza09:06:52

yes ,that link does help, 😄

andrevdm09:06:18

@placeboza: yeah its not that big conceptually I dont think (e.g. see https://hornbeck.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lisp-1-vs-lisp-2/) but I think it does make it feel a bit odd...

andrevdm09:06:10

i.e. just enough to trip you up when you are learning the "other"

placeboza09:06:27

yes. I vote Lisp 1

placeboza09:06:48

and Clojure using Lisp 1 makes sense to me

placeboza09:06:15

IMO if you want to get pedantic, then do Haskell instead. It's far better at it.

placeboza09:06:03

I like Clojure's balance of practicality

andrei09:06:30

@andrevdm thanks 😄, TIL Lisp-1 and Lisp-2

andrevdm09:06:14

@placeboza: I'm going to tell the Haskell board that you just called them pedantic

placeboza09:06:30

rephrase .. pure 😄

placeboza09:06:41

-pendantic +pure

placeboza09:06:29

anyway, pure languages are great. I'm just not ready for it yet

placeboza09:06:04

might be because the course I did put me off Haskell

placeboza09:06:15

more the trainer than the language's fault, perhaps

placeboza09:06:49

or just me not being ready for it

andrei09:06:52

that sounds to me that Haskell is theoretically solid but practically hard to learn or use. dunno at the end of the day code needs to get written and features shipped - 😄

andrei09:06:17

although I must say that there is a cognicast episode http://blog.cognitect.com/cognicast/ that covers teaching - and they did an experiment teaching beginners Haskell - apparently is easy to learn if you start with it and don’t have your mind polluted with "Java OO” (as an example of one of the many)

placeboza09:06:51

Maybe my problem was I already knew a bit of Clojure when I saw Haskell

placeboza09:06:09

and haskell just felt painful and strange

placeboza09:06:22

one day, it may make more sense to me

andrevdm09:06:46

I think its worth learning (most things are simple_smile ). I think its easier once you know FP a bit an clojure is certainly great for that

andrevdm09:06:34

I get the impression that learning Haskell will teach you the concepts well. I.e. instead of learning how inheritance works in your OO lang you learn the general concept of Type Classes (kinda)

andrevdm09:06:54

It does seem hard though...

andrevdm09:06:00

I've been using F# and never understood all the fuss about it not supporting higher kinded-types. Right up till I found what I was really struggling with was that I needed lenses and that does not work (in general) because... higher kinded types

andrevdm09:06:14

I suspect there is a lot like that...

andrevdm09:06:44

The syntax is odd but I think the concepts are solid. Now just need time for learning it and getting better at clojure too

andrevdm09:06:00

and since I'm at a C# company this is all after hours.... 😢

placeboza09:06:02

And I have this bad habit of spending time with family and computer games 😛

slipset10:06:02

btw, I was on a Haskell intro a while ago and was surprised by how few types I actually saw and had to relate to.

slipset10:06:26

I was so impressed I actually considered doing something in Haskell.

slipset10:06:30

But then I forgot

sander12:06:55

in cljs, i have a nested seq structure (actually, [:html [:head [:title …]]] etc) and want to replace seqs that start with :gallery with something else. is there a standard function that does this?

sander12:06:10

i don't know on beforehand how deeply nested the [:gallery …] seqs might be

tjg12:06:31

@sander One possibility is clojure.walk. Then upon finding a sequence which starts with :gallery, you replace the head.

tjg12:06:32

@sander: I'll start up Clojure and make a little example...

sander12:06:53

@tjg: cool! i'm reading the docs meanwhile

tjg12:06:13

@sander: Maybe not the cleanest version, but I guess something along these lines should do the job:

(->> [:foo
      [:bar]
      [:gallery 1 2]]
     (postwalk (fn [form]
                 (if (and (sequential? form)
                          (= :gallery (first form)))
                   (->> (concat [:replacement] (next form))
                        (into (empty form)))
                   form))))

sander12:06:42

tjg: works exactly as i hoped, thanks!

rauh15:06:32

@sander: If performance matters you might check out this comment: https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent/issues/14#issuecomment-34302638

sander15:06:55

@rauh: thanks, improving on this seems like a nice exercise to look into

teslanick18:06:55

@dnolen: Thanks for helping transducers-js exist -- I just started playing with JS Maps, Sets, etc, and they're a bear to work with without map/filter/reduce/etc.

dnolen18:06:33

@teslanick: Clojure/Cognitect gets all the credit for that. I just ported the Clojure stuff.

dnolen18:06:44

glad to hear you are finding it useful though

stian21:06:50

mfikes 😉

stian21:06:46

Stole them from cider/nrepl simple_smile

akiva22:06:26

@stian: They’re excellent. Steal them all (if you haven’t already).

arrdem22:06:24

I have a file somewhere of fortunes from the old lisp machines...

arrdem22:06:30

I’ll try and dig it out when I get home

akiva22:06:58

back in my early linux sysadmin days, i used to delete all the fortune files except for zippy’s.

akiva22:06:19

And why did I just go lower-case? [stares incredulously at hands]