Interesting to read the reactions to @richhickey's keynote. Sussman gives standing O while some people completely disagree #strangeloop
That's it, Sussman enthusiastically approves Clojure. What's your reason to not use it again?
>>4
I has nothing to do with ``irrational religious prejudice''. You asked for a reason to not use it, I gave you what I think is the main reason not to use it and I'm pretty sure you can understand that yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2011-09-21 7:22
>>5
It can but you need to point the call explicitly with the recur form. It's the only semantic restriction that JVM imposes on the language, and it might be gone in the future.
Name:
Anonymous2011-09-21 7:45
>>6 It has nothing to do with ``irrational religious prejudice''
Hardly. I asked for actual reasons and you answered with one word ``JVM" without any specific reasoning. In this form it can only mean ''JVM is bad because it's JVM". This is religious thinking.
You asked for a reason to not use it, I gave you
You did. But why do you think the reason you gave can't be irrational? It is and I pointed it out.
>>22
Scala is a chaotic mashup of Java and Haskell paradigms. Clojure got it right: if you want a good language you don't mix functional programming based on immutability with OOP where the central idea is objects with mutable state.