Thank you! I've been playing around with Clojure, because it's just so much fun, but setting up a development environment has been a nightmare (not in the least part, because, well, I've never seriously programmed in non-data/stats languages). I've been using ClojureBox, but that obviously has limitations.
I have been liking Clooj. It has almost nothing that most traditional IDEs have. I would like to see perhaps syntax highlighting, but it does highlight parens. The fact that it is only, for, and by Clojure though makes it pretty awesome. So it is somewhat minimalistic in that it only has what you need, and that's pretty great.
For what it's worth (relatively new to Clojure), I've enjoyed using IntelliJ with Clojure. Tried using emacs for a while but I'm hooked on vi-style bindings and evil-mode (+ emacs's unconventional ways in general) just didn't cut it for me.
Ive recently been working with SublimeText2. Yesterday I wanted to give Clojure another try, so I had a look and found the SublimeREPL plugin. It provides REPLs for several languages, Clojure included. It was very quick and easy to setup, I had it up and running inside of a short lunch break.
Hey, that's cool. I previously hacked up integration that sniffed for an existing JVM ran from the project directory and its REPL listen port, then sent text over telnet to it. Was too rough to use comfortably.
Thanks so much for this! I tuned in to the webcast at O'Reilly but their Flex app was failing me, I couldn't ask questions in the group chat, couldn't see the screencast at O'Reilly although I did manage to see it at Livestream but I couldn't read anything because of small text. So yeah, I tuned out pretty soon, but this is fantastic.
I couldn't join the live session due to a flaky 3G connection. Thanks for coming up with this and posting this even before the recording was available from Oreilly. I am going through your book and liking it so far, this is a wonderful opportunity to see you in action.
> I really don't get this hype about lisp-like languages.
Well for one thing some of us having been using Lisp for a very, very long time. I have personally been using it for years so it seems like the most natural thing to me at this point.
That is the historical element to Lisp. Of course, there are also practical advantages. The lisp-like languages are effectively the only class of languages available today that allow you to effective escape from text-based programming and use certain advanced techniques that are necessary for symbolic AI.
> Others (including Common Lisp) are just too complex for writing in them ASTs (yes, S-expression is AST...).
This part of your comment leaves much to be desired. How is Common Lisp complex and exactly what other languages share this feature? What does this have to do with "writing them ASTs"? Finally, please explain why you equate S-expressions with ASTs.
The likely cause here is a double-whammy of complaining about downvotes in a child comment, and a form of "what is posited without evidence can be rejected without evidence" that maps to downvoting comments without elaboration. What exactly makes you think the way you think regarding Common Lisp vs. Scheme vs. Clojure? What's a crowning example of Scheme's superiority over at http://hyperpolyglot.org/lisp ? Have you even read about what makes Clojure different from CL or Scheme so that you have an informed opinion? Not a bad place to start would be the official website, or perhaps the long article here: http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html
Yes, I know what differentiates Clojure from CL (or Scheme). What I'm saying is that it is possible to have most part of these goodies in non S-expr language. Except maybe homoiconicity and advanced macros (Although being S-expr is not required for homoiconicity (e.g. Prolog)).
Well, your second statement was not really accurate or even really coherent. CL and Clojure both have relatively simple syntax compared to most mainstream languages because of their use of S-expressions. Although reader macros mean they aren't purely S-expressions.
But the main reason that you're being downvoted is because this site tends to attract Lisp aficionados. Paul Graham is well-known for claiming that Lisp is better than all other languages: