That's "strange", isn't it? It prints as (1 2 3), but it is not a list? So there are things which print as lists, but aren't lists? What? Which also means that when we print it and read it back, it will be of a different type and list? will be true?!
It's not "inconsistent" between the variants. Clojure is a hosted language, it depends on the underlying platform.
In Clojurescript, the implementation details and type checks differ slightly from Clojure due to the different runtime environments (Javascript vs. JVM). As a result, certain predicates like `list?` might behave differently.
In Clojure, it's generally better to use (seq?) instead of (list?) when you need to check if a value is a sequence, as (seq?) is more encompassing and works for all sequence types, not just lists.
You almost never use (list?) in Clojure unless you explicitly need to check for a list created via (list ...), and most of the time we use (seq?) instead.
Maybe Clojure doesn't work for you because you haven't even bothered checking the documentation? At least you could've asked Google or ChatGPT, before crying how "broken it is". The language after all wasn't created last weekend, it's been around for 17 years
You can probably make many like minded friends in r/haskell. Just post something about Clojure and pedants most likely crawl out, saying how it is not an FP-language. :)
It's not "failing" on the simplest basic list cons'ing, it did what's expected, it consed the list. You're trying language features without even bothering to ask if the function you're using does what you think it does.
Have you read the docstring for (list?)? It says "Returns true if x implements IPersistentList". (cons 1 '(2 3)) results in a clojure.lang.Cons not the instance of clojure.lang.PersistentList. A clojure dev would be using (seq? (cons 1 '(2 3))) instead of what you tried.
Maybe before hating something so fervently try to learn it a bit more first?
Clojure is a hosted language. It embraces the idioms, strengths, and ecosystems of the platforms it runs on (JVM, Javascript, .NET, Dart, etc.) without trying to "change the platform" or impose an absolute uniform behavior across different environments.
Clojure encourages using idiomatic patterns that align with the host platform’s best practices. For instance, when running on the JVM, it leverages JVM's threading model and garbage collection; in Clojurescript, it adopts patterns suitable for JS's event-driven model.
Clojure does not try to provide a uniform abstraction layer that masks platform differences. Instead, it exposes platform-specific capabilities, making developers aware of and able to exploit the unique features and strengths of each platform.
Clojure compiles down to the native code of the host platform. For the JVM, it compiles to JVM bytecode; for JS, it compiles to JS code. This means the compiled code runs as if it were natively written in the host language.
Clojure operates within the host runtime, using the host platform’s execution model, memory management, and runtime services.
Being a hosted language means that Clojure does not attempt to hide or abstract away the platform it runs on. Instead, it integrates deeply with the host platform, leveraging its native capabilities and interoperation features. This allows Clojure code to be idiomatic to the host environment and benefit fully from its strengths.
I can only add to that - the hosted nature of Clojure is one of the most underrated awesome features of it. You can write for example a macro that's defined in Clojure code, but to be used in Clojurescript, and changes the behavior of a browser app based on a condition detected in JVM - for example, you can parse some .js library and based on that (clojurescript compiler would) emit modified compiled Javascript code. That stuff is useful for dynamic polyfilling, i18n, css-in-js, feature-flagging, using shims to ensure compatibility, and more.
Moreover, you can have namespaces where Clojure and Clojurescript code is intertwined. I have never seen so much code reusability, even when I was heavily writing for Node. Check this out: you can write specs that would represent your data, alright? Then, you can generate some random collections of data based on those specs. The data that you can use both - on front-end (e.g., for end-to-end testing) and back-end (e.g., for testing the domain logic). You can also use the same specs for validation in UI controls - 'not a valid email', etc. Neat, right?
But why is a list not a list across all platforms?
Other Lisp dialects run on top of the JVM, .net, JavaScript, LLVM, UNIX, iOS, Android, Linux, ... and there is no such problem.
Try ABCL on the JVM. (listp (cons 1 '(2 3))) is T.
I would think that consistency and correctness of basic Lisp operations (-> LISP stands for "List Processor") would be a high priority of any self-respecting Lisp dialect?
Alright, your concern about consistency in basic operations is valid. Yet, it's important to consider the different design philosophies and practical constraints of Clojure and Clojurescript - platform-specific optimizations, type systems, practical trade-offs, etc.
To be honest, I never knew about this (list?) thing behaving differently with (cons) because I personally have never stumbled upon that. Most likely, people raised this question because, like I said, the language has been around for decades. I don't know the proper and accurate answer for you here, that's probably some intentional design choice rather than a bug, driven by the need to balance consistency with platform-specific optimizations and constraints; if that was important, I would've found it and known how to explain it. It is not important (think of it as an easter egg), because...
Like I said before, Clojure emphasizes using seq abstraction instead of lists. It is a core part of Clojure's design and works uniformly across Clojure, Clojurescript, Clojure-Dart and other variants. It abstracts over different collection types, allowing you to work with sequences without worrying about the underlying concrete types. Functions that return `seq` often produce lazy sequences, which can be more memory-efficient and allow for incremental processing. This is particularly useful for handling large datasets or infinite sequences. `seq` functions, such as `first`, `rest`, `next`, and higher-order functions like `map`, `filter`, and `reduce`, provide a consistent API and behavior across different implementations of Clojure. This minimizes the impact of platform-specific differences. In addition, it can often lead to performance optimizations tailored to the specific platform, as it allows the runtime to use the most efficient way to traverse collections.
Yes, Lisp traditionally stands for "LISt Processing," and lists are indeed central to Lisp's heritage. However, modern Lisp dialects have evolved to handle a broader range of data structures efficiently while maintaining the core principles of Lisp. Common Lisp, while having first-class support for lists, also has a broader set of data structures including vectors, strings, and bytevectors. Racket enhances the language with a diverse range of data structures—vectors, hash maps, sets, and streams. Elisp, too, has hash tables and strings. Clojure adds vectors, maps, and sets as first-class citizens. I guess that's why we no longer use "Lisp" as an acronym - we no longer capitalize each letter. I guess one could say "it is still 'LISt Processing' because every expression written in it is a list..." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
LISP does not stand for "List processing", it stands for "List Processor". To quote John McCarthy: "A programming system called LISP (for LISt Processor) has been developed for the IBM 704...".
This is a programming system, which is a list processor. Not a vector processor, not a graphics processor, not a number cruncher -> it's a list processor.
Now McCarthy defines three basic LISP features:
* Data has the form of S-expressions, for which a definition is given, which is linked lists of atoms&lists. -> a very low level definition.
* There is a LISP language which processes these s-expressions. Simple operators are being defined.
* LISP can interpret and execute LISP programs in the form of s-Expressions.
To sum up: there are linked lists, a programming language for processing them AND the programs themselves can be interpreted by LISP.
He then defines an "universal LISP function", an interpreter for LISP in LISP.
That's the actual core essence of LISP. Think about it!
That's the big thing which was defined in the very first pages of the first LISP papers: a very simple foundation, which describes how to do computation by a List Processor, applied to itself.
This is the core language: a data structure, a few operations and an interpreter written in itself.
Fire up your Emacs Lisp (start GNU Emacs and do m-x ielm). It's all there: the data structure (-> linked lists of symbols), the operations (car, cdr, cons, read, print, cond, lambda, eq, assoc, append, ...) and the interpreter (-> eval).
It's not one of many data structures, it is the central thing: s-expressions, programs as s-expressions, a list processor (-> EVAL) defined in the language it is executing, executing programs which are given as s-expressions, able to execute itself.
All the other stuff you've mentioned is secondary: Homoiconicity, First-class Functions, Macro System, automated memory management, REPL-driven, interactive development.
McCarthy described a specific way to do computation. That's the core of LISP. One which can be taught in a day, which fits on a few pages and which allows us to develop a simple mental model of it.
Clojure does not have the same axiomatic definition of a List Processor, it is not interpreting lists, ... It has a complex data structure at its core: lazy persistent sequences, it compiles code (the compiler is written in Java and compiles to the Java Virtual Machine), it has the JVM underneath, ...
If I break the execution of a list processor, I see the programs as lists being executed by a lisp processor. Write a program in Emacs Lisp, execute it by the interpreted EVAL, run it, interrupt it and you'll see a backtrace where the interpreter runs the Lisp expressions.
If I want to teach people Lisp, I explain this simple LISP PROCESSOR. That's the mental model they need to have: the form of Lisp programs and its execution. Once they have this mental model of LISP, it is valid for all core LISP dialects.
This is also explained in the LISP literature: "LISP 1.5 manual", "Anatomy of LISP" (John Allen -> the book is available here for download: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/542865 ), "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (Abelson/Sussman), "Paradigms of AI Programming" (Norvig), "Lisp In Small Pieces" (Queinnec), "The roots of LISP" (Graham) and others. All these explain this foundation (and expand on it).
Clojure is slightly different. It's a modern&pragmatic&opinionated dialect of Lisp for the JVM, which does not have this simple LIST PROCESSOR. That's why it is an dialect of LISP, but not one which shares the axiomatic core of LISP.
While Clojure emphasizes lazy persistent sequences, it still uses lists as a primary data structure and supports list processing. The new data structures are extensions, not replacements, designed to address specific application needs more effectively.
Many classical Lisp implementations also compile code. Compilation does not preclude a language from being a Lisp. Clojure continues the use of s-expressions for code and data representation. Clojure provides a REPL, a staple of Lisp environments.
Clojure retains the homoiconic nature of Lisp. Macros in Clojure very much akin to those in traditional Lisps.
Clojure’s design choices are about extending Lisp principles to solve modern software engineering challenges. Rich Hickey wasn't like: "Lispers were all wrong..." He chose to build the language on top of Lisp principles, and these principles are evident, unmistakably clear and can be seen with a naked eye.
I'm honestly getting worn out by this debate. You're delving into the minutiae of taxonomy, like whether early hominids can be classified as humans, and it's just exhausting. I've told you before, and I'll tell you again — unless someone truly eminent persuades Rich and he eventually concedes, saying: "Yes, Clojure in reality ain't no Lisp..." only then will I alter my position. Until that time, I will continue to call it a Lisp, regard it as a Lisp, and talk about it as a Lisp. The only thing you can do to change my opinion - is to persuade Rich to change his.
You are on the surface. I'm talking about a computing paradigm defined by LISP. A foundational model at the core of the language, enabling us to understand how the List Processor actually works.
LISP has dialects which are not homoiconic, where programs are not written as s-expressions, ... But the core is the same: a specific List Processor. McCarthy himself did not want to write programs as s-expressions. He defined M-Expressions, where S-Expressions were only used for the data.
Check the book "Anatomy of LISP", which is a classic. All the code in the book is written in M-Expressions. Now, Racket gets a new syntax (-> Rhombus). But the language core mechanisms are still there. I'm a fan of the s-expression syntax, but I've also heard&read from many people (incl. McCarthy), that THEY preferred a different syntax. I've seen Apple defining Dylan (Dynamic Language) with an s-expression syntax and then changing the language to a different syntax for broader adoption. You (and me) think it is essential. McCarthy and others thought that it was the wrong syntax for getting wider adoption.
Btw., personally, I don't care that much what Rich Hickey says. I can think for myself.
It is fallacious to suggest that in order to have generic iteration that supports non-list objects, we must abandon the classic list processing functions and give them alternative names and behaviors.
In the TXR Lisp dialect, classic functions like mapcar iterate over nonlists, without losing a shred of backward compatibility over lists.
For instance, we can iterate starting from an integer, in parallel with iterating over a list:
1> (mapcar 'cons '(a b c) 0)
((a . 0) (b . 1) (c . 2))
What we do is pattern the iteration abstraction after the car/cdr model, so that car/cdr iteration falls out as a straightforward special case.
To do this we define an iteration API with four operations:
iter-begin: construct the iterator from the sequence object
iter-more: test the iterator whether it has more elements
iter-item: if iter-more tested true, get the first item
iter-step: calculate iterator of rest of sequence
iter-step may be functional or destructive, so the caller must capture the new iterator returned as a value and must stop using the old one.
Integer:
1> (iter-begin 0) ;; identity
0
2> (iter-more 0) ;; true function: ignores argument, returns t.
t
3> (iter-item 0) ;; identity
0
4> (iter-step 0) ;; successor function
1
