TCL is a better Scheme

This is a tail-recursive naive implementation of factorial for TCL 8.6:
proc fac-tr {n {k 1}} {
if {$n <= 1} {
return $k
} else {
tailcall fac-tr [- $n 1] [* $n $k]
}
}

Clojure does it better with explicit tail call (recur)sion

>>2
Clojure is not a LISP.

>>3
Show me another language with S-exps AND tons of maintained libraries. It really doesn't matter if Clojure as a language doesn't measure up to nebulous standards of ``true LISP''. Ecosystem is important. No practical person cares about the ``LISP'' religion. The adherents of this religion are mental masturbatory retards who fellate each other on lambdatheultimate and discuss programming on a meta level because they're too fucking (or 'lazy 'retarded 'pretentious) to participate in modern computing. Just reading these peoples' comments is enough reason to abandon the cult.

AND tons of maintained libraries

You don't need the libraries to be made in the language you are going to use.

>>4
This is a common /prog/ troll. Don't take it too seriously.

>>6 is a virus, do not read.

>>4
Too bad the libraries are all written for Java and you have to contort your program into a faux Java style to use them.

Your next line will be: ``Just write a wrapper around them, it's easy in Lisp!''.

>>8
Eventually all libraries will be written for Java. Get used to the idea.

>>4

Show me another language with S-exps AND tons of maintained libraries.

Kawa scheme can use all the java libraries while still being a Lisp. It's also way easier to use the java side in Kawa compared to Clojure.

>>4
Clojure doesn't have any substantially different number of maintained libraries.

If you include Java libs towards Clojure's library count, then any FFI or JNI mapping from other languages count as well. That's stupid.

>>4

Show me another language with S-exps AND tons of maintained libraries.

You seem to be under an impression that "tons of maintained libraries" is a property of being a LISP and a good thing overall. This is wrong. Powerful metaprogramming allows real LISP programmers to grow their own dialect of the language that fits perfectly to the problem at hand instead of mucking with one size fits all shit libriaries.

I could see the purpose in using Clojure if it meant you could hold a job and use something vaguely Lispy at the same time, but nobody is hiring for Clojure so you might as well go whole hog and use the real deal.

>>12
Manipulating an AST with what is basically a regexp preprocessing hack doesn't help me when I just want to load a file format or write data for a protocol. How would a macro help me decode a PNG, for example? This attitude that the only things worth having are in Lisp is why Lisp does nothing useful.

>>14
Oh you of simple mind. Macros bring your data specifications to life. You can pseudocode out a file format, and have that actually execute, parameterize it however you want, and any edits or changes stay live. Lisp is great for serialization.