Talk:Clojure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Java (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Lack of good sources[edit]

I'm having trouble finding 3rd party references about the language that are not either directly from or one-step-removed-from Rich Hickey (the language creator) which would violate the "no original research" doctrine? Where can I find other references to this language Derarthur (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of hype about this language everywhere on the web, unfortunately a lot of references are just coming from software programmers blogs. But I think we should find other references than just the main source. Hervegirod (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy or anything, but here's my advice: It seems entirely appropriate to use Hickey as the primary source for any "non-controversial" statements about Clojure (e.g. definitions of its architecture), because he is its sole creator. However, for more "controversial" statements, such as those along the lines of, "Clojure is so super cool! It's much better than Haskell!", the proper phrasing would be, "According to Hickey, 'Clojure is super cool and much better than Haskell'"--and cite as before. You're simply not going to find too many "good" secondary sources for at least a few years, since the language is neither mainstream nor academic. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List comprehension example[edit]

When the article grows, you can link to Clojure's list comprehension example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_comprehension#Clojure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.105.130 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Expand[edit]

Mark Volkmann's article is a great starting point to expand this wiki article in the same format as other programming language articles: http://ociweb.com/jnb/jnbMar2009.html 217.132.53.109 (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronounce?[edit]

Is it like 'clojure' or 'cloyure' or 'clohure' or 'clozhure'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OsamaBinLogin (talkcontribs) 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pronounced like closure. I added a note about that. 93.173.238.209 (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First appeared[edit]

The newsgroup states that Clojure birthday was on 16th October 2007. Should the "Appeared in" mention the specific date? 93.172.131.46 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Example contains errors[edit]

This example is missing a bracket.

 (let [vec-refs (vec (map (comp ref vec)
                          (partition nitems (range (* nvecs nitems)))))
       swap #(let [v1 (rand-int nvecs)
                   v2 (rand-int nvecs)
                   i1 (rand-int nitems)
                   i2 (rand-int nitems)]

--68.161.111.143 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The example is correct; it works in Clojure 1.2. 72.177.114.33 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rich Hickey's article deleted[edit]

Wikipedia's deletionists somehow reached the bewildering conclusion from this page that consensus is Rich Hickey is not notable and should be deleted. I'm too old for internet politics. I give up.

Here's the salvage from Rich Hickey's original page:

Rich Hickey is the creator of the Clojure programming language, a Lisp dialect built on top of the Java Virtual Machine.
Before Clojure, he developed dotLisp, a similar project based on the .NET platform.
Hickey is an independent software developer and a consultant with over 20 years of experience in many facets of software development. He has worked on scheduling systems, broadcast automation, audio analysis and fingerprinting, database design, yield management, exit poll systems, and machine listening.
He spent about 2½ years working on Clojure before releasing it to the world, much of that time working exclusively on Clojure without external funding. When he finally announced it, the announcement consisted of one email to some friends in the Common Lisp community.
Sources

Rich Hickey continues to produce interesting ideas and implementations, including Datomic and Codeq. He really should have his own article, folks! RichMorin (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I found it a little weird that the wikipedia page for Rich the person points to Clojure the language... seems to me like his page should either exist for real (my vote!) or be deleted completely and have the usual 'page does not exist' stub. What is going on with this auto-redirect? --Lansey (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This kind of redirect is called a redirect with possibilities. It's common practice when two topics are related and we only have an article for one of them, and it serves two purposes:
  • It allows interested readers to find some content about the removed topic, such as here with the section about Rich Hickey (topics that are not notable can still be covered as sections of a larger topic).
  • It signals editors about a topic with the potential to become a stand-alone article if enough sources are accumulated. When the sub-section pointed by the redirect growths too large, it should be split and placed under the title of the redirect page. Diego (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Variants[edit]

Why is compojure listed in the variants section?

I think we should make a clear distinction between official variants (ClojureCLR, ClojureScript) and unofficial ones, like las3r and Clojure-Py.

--Ivant (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Compojure --Kvng (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

About to remove the multi-paradigm tag in the right-side box.[edit]

Clojure is not pure functional, but that doesn't sufficiently make it a "multi-paradigm" one.

Any objections?

Also See:

--Crlf0710 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)