[bitsai]

Precisely. Clojure was my first Lisp, and I got spoiled by the "every collection is a seq" uniformity. In Clojure, functions like 'count' can operate on all collections, whereas in, say, Racket, you have an explosion of methods like:

length

vector-length

string-length

hash-count

set-count

...

Clojure embodies Alan Perlis' idea that "It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures.", which is one of the many reasons why I enjoy the language so much.

[radarsat1]

> "It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures."

Oddly enough though, you yourself are pointing out that it is better to have 1 function that operates on 10 data structures. ("length" operates on vectors, strings, hash tables, etc.) On the surface this seems opposed to the quote you chose.

However, it is clearer if you replace "data structure" with "interface". The is classic separation of concerns. When specifying the "what", we can get away with "100 functions operate on one interface", but the efficiency, the "how", can be specified independently based on the choice of data structure implementing that interface.

[bitsai]

Yes, that is a better way of making the point. Thank you.