CODEWITHSUNDEEP
clojurelispcommon-lisplet
kamituel
kamituel

Reputation: 35960

Clojure let vs Common Lisp let

In Common Lisp, the let uses a list for a bindings, i.e:

(let ((var1 1)
      (var2 2))
  ...)

While Clojure uses a vector instead:

(let [a 1
      b 2]
  ...)

Is there any specific reason, other than readability, for Clojure to use a vector?

Upvotes: 6

Views: 932

Answers (2)

Baggers
Baggers

Reputation: 3231

Rich's line on this was as follows

"Since we were talking about syntax, let’s look at classic Lisp. It seems to be the simplest of syntax, everything is a parenthesized list of symbols, numbers, and a few other things. What could be simpler? But in reality, it is not the simplest, since to achieve that uniformity, there has to be substantial overloading of the meaning of lists. They might be function calls, grouping constructs, or data literals, etc. And determining which requires using context, increasing the cognitive load when scanning code to assess its meaning. Clojure adds a couple more composite data literals to lists, and uses them for syntax. In doing so, it means that lists are almost always call-like things, and vectors are used for grouping, and maps have their own literals. Moving from one data structure to three reduces the cognitive load substantially."

One of the things he believes was overloaded in the standard syntax was access time. So vector syntax in arguments is related to the constant access time when you used them. He said:

Seems odd though as it only is valid for that one form...as soon as it is stored in a variable or passed in any way the information is 'lost'. For example...

(defn test [a]
  (nth a 0)) ;;<- what is the access time of and element of a?

I personally prefer harsh syntax changes like brackets to be reserved for when the programmer has to switch mental models e.g. for embedded languages. 

;; Example showing a possible syntax for an embedded prolog.

{size [],0}
{size([H|T],N) :- size(T,N1), N is N1+1}

(size '(1 2 3 4) 'n) ;; here we are back to lisp code

Such a concept is syntactically constant. You don't 'pass around' structure at runtime. Before runtime (read/macro/compile time) is another matter though so where possible it is often better to keep things as lists.

[edit] The original source seems to have gone, but here is another record of the interview: https://gist.github.com/rduplain/c474a80d173e6ae78980b91bc92f43d1#file-code-quarterly-rich-hickey-2011-md

Upvotes: 4

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Reputation: 13473

You can find Rich Hickey's argument at Simple Made Easy - slide 14, about 26 minutes in:

Simple Made Easy - slide 14

Upvotes: 8

Related Questions