Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglullis | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, Jython is at 2.5.2, 3.5 years behind cpython.

That is certainly a problem. But there are very few language constructs in Python >= 2.6 that are missing in Python 2.5, and the really missing features (e.g, multiprocessing module) have better alternatives in the JVM, or are redundant. You lose some portability, but Jython 2.5 doesn't seem to be that limited in capabilities.

Anyways, YMMV. All I got to do once was set my Django application to run on Jython, and that was relatively painless.

While I'd agree Python 2.5 to 2.7 doesn't bring a swath of language features with it... it's a good sign of Jython's slowing/sluggish growth/development.

Personally, I want to use a language implementation that will be around and (well!) supported for many years.

None of you three mentioned Python 3.0 to 3.2.

That's because they don't matter to anyone.

It seems common that people don't upgrade to a breaking version of a programming language based on name or distro channel alone. Hence the slow uptake of Python 3 and Perl 6.

This occurred to me after I finished writing that post.

Yea... I'm still confused as to the whole point of pure/near-pure functional programming if we're not getting better code density/more productivity against other languages which I (and some others) find easier to work with.

I guess all I'm saying is "convince me!" :) I'm all ears.

I mean the answer is that the Python example is nearly purely functional to begin with. It uses list comprehensions heavily and I couldn't find any mutating assignments in a quick glance of the code. Which is not surprising, since it was written by Peter Norvig, who wrote a very popular Lisp book.

I think what Clojure can offer on top of that is macros, the advantages of which are really only evident on bigger or harder problems.

In short: FP makes programs easier to reason about and understand by using trustworthy abstractions. Here are some resources to check out, which explain better than I could:

Why Functional Programming Matters: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/courses/cs345/whyfp.pdf

Out of the Tar Pit: http://web.mac.com/ben_moseley/frp/paper-v1_01.pdf

Simple Made Easy: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

You actually get better code density with Clojure, for large enough programs. And a WAY better code density when you try to do multithreading.

The big differences between Clojure and Python are probably twofold: it's a Lisp, and it focuses on getting concurrency right. We've had Lisps for a while, and Python only really lacks Lisp macros, so let's think about the concurrency stuff...

Clojure's design goals combine some deep ideas about identity, state and time together and includes data structures and a concurrency API that supports these goals. It's going to be hard for anyone to just convince you in a comment like this, and even if they could, I'm not the one to do it as I'm a Clojure noob.

You should read this essay http://clojure.org/state and watch this talk http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hic....

I think you will find that Clojure is pretty interesting, even if you don't start using it right away. I apologize for just throwing you links, but I can't do it justice, and Rich Hickey is a great lecturer, so you'll get more from his stuff.

getting better code density/more productivity

Its not so much about brevity or productivity as it is about correctness. Functional programming and immutable data makes it easier to reason about code and to prevent bugs/errors, especially in the context of concurrent/multicore code.

How does Clojure's Java interop compare to Jython's?

In some ways it's nicer (clojure fns are java Callables), in some ways it's less nice (harder to extend a class).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com