Clojure for the Semantic Web

I dropped in to hear Rich Hickey talk about Clojure at the New York Semantic Web meetup group.  Some highlights: • Some programs, like compilers or theorem provers, are themselves functions.  They take input and produce output.  Purely functional languages like Haskell are good for these kinds of programs.  But other programs, like GUIs or… Continue reading Clojure for the Semantic Web

More Clojure Love

I dropped by the Java Users’ Group meeting last week since Rich Hickey was there to talk about Clojure. I expected a bit of carping from the Java guys, and at first they were all “efficiency this” and “security that.”  But by mid-way through the talk I think they were getting it.  A few even… Continue reading More Clojure Love

Arc

The most famous piece of Lisp-related vaporware is vapor no longer: Arc has been released. After paging through the tutorial, I’m a bit underwhelmed. It looks like just a bunch of syntactic sugar implemented on top of Scheme. Clojure is more interesting and more innovative. Clojure and Arc have some things in common: data structures… Continue reading Arc

Critical Mass

Dan Weinreb posted common Complaints About Common Lisp. My personal complaint is in there — the lack of libraries that are well-documented and regularly updated. I think it’s a critical mass problem: so few people are using Common Lisp in their day-to-day work that there’s not enough momentum to keep the libraries going and make… Continue reading Critical Mass

Beyond Syntax

From a 1995 paper on intentional programming: “Present day syntax had [sic] been predicated on a character stream that could have been input from punch cards, or teletypes.” Exactly! Why are we still working in a punch-card manner on million-pixel displays? Why are we still arguing about curly brackets versus parentheses when Unicode has millions… Continue reading Beyond Syntax

Ruby vs. Lisp

I’m certainly not the first to do this, but I felt like writing it. Comparing Ruby and Common Lisp: Syntax: Advantage, Common Lisp. No contest here. Ruby’s syntax is ugly, with all those ends hanging around and the { |var| … } block syntax. The one thing Ruby has going for it is conciseness. The… Continue reading Ruby vs. Lisp

Intentional Programming

In one of my first posts, I asked “Why do we speak of programming languages instead of programming notation?” My thought was, and still is, that code in any existing programming language is just one possible representation of an abstract computational process. Higher-level languages like Lisp are good because they bring the written representation closer… Continue reading Intentional Programming