|
|
|
|
|
|
by capableweb
2028 days ago
|
|
|
> evaluate if a Lisp/Scheme implementation article is interesting I guess Clojure doesn't count as interesting and/or a lisp then, as `(2 . 3)` would not be parsed correctly and instead throw a syntax error on that form. I still thought the article was interesting and would have loved to see a section on macros. Maybe next time. |
|
|
The Schemers and Common Lispers have been saying this about Clojure for years, you know ...
And, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't disagree with the choice that Clojure made. Not being able to process a "list" as a sequence is a PITA.
However, articles like these get written with "Look how easy it is to make a Lisp" without saying "Except that we didn't implement these really hard features that actually make a Lisp"