[nickik]

What kind of argument is this.

> constraint logic programming, logic programming

The book you comment on actually implments a logic programming system.

Both common lisp and clojure have implmentations of high performance logic systems.

> Static functional programming

Both Clojure and Common Lisp have type systems that can do most things ml and haskell can do. Its arguable that some of this (in the CL) are even more powerful then what haskell has.

Im not sure on what the other types of programming are but the do not at sound like things that a library can not do. Can you give a example of something that you can not do in clojure or commen lisp that is possible without in these other languages that you have not actually provieded.

> Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming

It is a very good book. However 99.99% of programming today are not done with these modern concepts. It are actually langauges like clojure that push some of the technics like constraint logic programming more into the mainstream. Check out core.logic.

[freyrs3]

> Both Clojure and Common Lisp have type systems that can do most things ml and haskell can do.

I don't know about that, Haskell has quite a few very non-trivial extensions in it's type system that I have yet to see replicated outside of research languages. ( Rank-N Types, GADTs, Kind polymorphism, etc).

[nickik]

See things, like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_%28programming_language%29 or https://github.com/clojure/core.typed

[freyrs3]

Both of those projects implement fairly simple type systems, they both even look simpler than even ML. Having at least outer rank-1 quantification is what I consider a "modern" typing system.

[nickik]

Im not a expoert. But I think at least Qi is as advanced as haskell or ml. The clojure one is relativly new and not jet full featured.

[iopq]

> Both Clojure and Common Lisp have type systems that can do most things ml and haskell can do.

Except they let you do MORE, which is often bad. For example, in Haskell STM you have a static guarantee that you don't have mutation or IO inside of a transaction. How are you going to guarantee that with Clojure STM?

[nickik]

That is absolutly possible with a static type system.

[unz]

But that's not the main style of programming. If you teach someone lisp he'll hack around with functions and macros and not realize that his problem could be elegantly written in constraint programming.

Most of the time the majority of code (written by good programmers) is in constraints or relations, so why encase that in a functional language with parenthesis everywhere (I've programmed a fair bit in lisp and don't mind parenthesis at all, but it get's annoying after you're used to the elegance of prolog syntax).

[nickik]

People who have problems need to know about diffrent solutions. Just forcing everybody to use some langauge that supports some of these from the ground up want change that.

You want a language that is flexible to expand into new fields.

Also you have still not provided with these magical programming languages you are talking about. Is there any language you yourself would use?

As far as I know many concepts like contraind logical programming is not really ready for prime time, in most cases.

[unz]

(you tamp down a little with your rudeness - why would multiple decades old tech be 'magical')

Prolog with clpfd and chr, Mozart/Oz, Sql, Clips. Libraries like gecode, java choco.

There aren't any new ways of programming that have been invented. There's basically the mathematical programming (constraint/logic/relational/linear), functional, procedural, oo, concurrent, stack. You're not going to come up with something new during a session of lisp hacking. You'll just reinvent the above multiple times.

[nickik]

I never said I invent something new. Lisp is a flexible languages that can incorparate new concepts better then other langauges. How nice is it to work if a logic programming system implmented within java compared with the same within clojure.