Take the 2-minute tour ×  I find I very rarely use let in
Clojure. For some reason I took a dislike to it when I started
learning and have avoided using it ever since. It feels like the
flow has stopped when let comes along. I was wondering, do you
think we could do without it altogether ?  share|improve this
question Maybe you'll find this article interesting which covers
using functions instead of let to explain monads. –  Dominic
Kexel Nov 29 '12 at 15:24 thanks - very interesting – 
Hendekagon Nov 29 '12 at 22:54 add comment  5 Answers  up vote
11 down vote accepted  You can replace any occurrence of (let
[a1 b1 a2 b2...] ...) by ((fn [a1 a2 ...] ...) b1 b2 ...) so
yes, we could. I am using let a lot though, and I'd rather not
do without it.  share|improve this answer In fact (let [a1 b1 a2
b2] ...) is better explained by (((fn [a1] (fn [a2] ...)) b1)
b2). What I mean is that you can refer to previous bindings in
subsequent ones. Edit: parentheses, we all love them. –  Jan Nov
28 '12 at 23:52 @Jan I guess