Clolog is a small, experimental logic programming language implemented in Clojure. It aims to bring the declarative power of Prolog to Clojure, allowing developers to define facts and rules, and then query those facts and rules using logical inference. Clolog supports basic Prolog features such as unification, backtracking, and recursion, and integrates seamlessly with existing Clojure code and data structures. While it's not a full-fledged Prolog implementation, it provides a lightweight and accessible way to experiment with logic programming within the Clojure ecosystem.
Clojure offers a compelling blend of practicality and powerful abstractions. Its Lisp syntax, while initially daunting, promotes code clarity and conciseness once mastered. Immutability by default simplifies reasoning about code and facilitates concurrency, while the dynamic nature allows for rapid prototyping and interactive development. Leveraging the vast Java ecosystem provides stability and performance, and the focus on functional programming principles encourages robust and maintainable applications. Ultimately, Clojure empowers developers to build complex systems with elegance and efficiency.
HN commenters generally agree with the author's points on Clojure's strengths, particularly its simple, consistent syntax, powerful data structures, and the benefits of immutability and functional programming for concurrency. Some discuss practical advantages in their own work, citing increased productivity and fewer bugs. A few caution that Clojure's unique features have a learning curve and can make debugging more challenging. Others mention Lisp's historical influence and the powerful REPL as key benefits, while some debate the practicality of Clojure's immutability and the ecosystem's reliance on Java. Several commenters highlight Clojure's suitability for specific domains like data processing and web development. There's also discussion around tooling, with some praise for Clojure's tooling and others mentioning room for improvement.
Parinfer simplifies Lisp code editing by automatically managing parentheses, brackets, and indentation. It offers two modes: "Paren Mode," where indentation dictates structure and Parinfer adjusts parentheses accordingly, and "Indent Mode," where parentheses define the structure and Parinfer corrects indentation. This frees the user from manually tracking matching delimiters, allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Parinfer analyzes the code as you type, instantly propagating changes and offering immediate feedback about structural errors, leading to a more fluid and less error-prone coding experience. It's adaptable to different indentation styles and supports various Lisp dialects.
HN users generally praised Parinfer for making Lisp editing easier, especially for beginners. Several commenters shared positive experiences using it with Clojure, noting improvements in code readability and reduced parenthesis-related errors. Some highlighted its ability to infer parentheses placement based on indentation, simplifying structural editing. A few users discussed its potential applicability to other languages, and at least one pointed out its integration with popular editors. However, some expressed skepticism about its long-term benefits or preference for traditional Lisp editing approaches. A minor point of discussion revolved around the tool's name and how it relates to its functionality.
Summary of Comments ( 43 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43695620
HN commenters generally expressed interest in Clolog, praising its simplicity and elegance. Some highlighted its potential as a pedagogical tool for introducing logic programming concepts. Others discussed its limitations, particularly around performance and the lack of certain features found in Prolog, like cut and negation. There was a short thread comparing it to miniKanren, with a commenter pointing out Clolog's more traditional Prolog-like syntax. A few users shared their experiences experimenting with the code, including porting it to other Lisps. Overall, the reception was positive, with many appreciating the project as a clean and understandable implementation of core logic programming ideas.
The Hacker News post titled "Clolog" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43695620) discussing the Clolog project (https://github.com/bobschrag/clolog) has several comments exploring various aspects of the project and its implications.
One commenter highlights the historical context of logic programming within Lisp, mentioning the development of the LOGLISP system in the early 1980s and its integration of logic programming paradigms into a Lisp environment. They also touch upon the challenges of efficiently implementing such systems, especially considering the performance limitations of hardware at the time.
Another commenter expresses their intrigue with the project, particularly the choice of Clojure as the implementation language. They appreciate the elegance of Clojure and suggest that it might provide a suitable foundation for a logic programming system. They also inquire about the project's performance characteristics and the author's motivations for choosing Clojure.
A subsequent comment raises the question of the project's practical applications and expresses curiosity about the types of problems it is designed to solve. They seem to be looking for concrete examples or use cases to better understand the scope and potential of Clolog.
Further down, a commenter delves deeper into the technical aspects of the project, specifically discussing the unification algorithm employed by Clolog. They inquire about the chosen approach and its implications for performance and expressiveness. This comment sparks a short discussion about different unification strategies and their trade-offs.
Another commenter brings up the topic of constraint logic programming and wonders if Clolog supports or plans to support constraints. They posit that constraint programming features could significantly enhance the project's applicability to a wider range of problems.
The discussion also touches upon the broader context of logic programming and its place in the current programming landscape. One commenter laments the relative decline in popularity of logic programming and expresses hope that projects like Clolog can help revitalize interest in this paradigm.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of curiosity, technical analysis, and historical perspective. They explore the project's design choices, potential applications, and its relationship to the broader field of logic programming. The commenters express interest in the project's performance, the chosen unification algorithm, and the possibility of adding constraint programming features.