... The Drools DRL language itself was designed as a more intuitive and less verbose language, this becomes increasinly important as you start to add more complex syntax which becomes harder to read with a lisp approach. I think most people in here would agree that the Drools DRL approach is an improvement over the lisp approach of clips/jess - apart from the die hard lisp fans.I might be a die hard Lisp fan, but if you ask me, the problem is not that CLIPS (and Jess) are Lisp-like it's that they are Lisp-like.
CLIPS doesn't use a Lisp approach. It might look that way, but the similarities are only skin-deep. CLIPS lack one of the most fundamental requirements for being Lispy, namely, code as data. It lacks other things as well, but given that capacity (or in other words to be able to provide a higher level syntactical abstraction on top of CLIPS) there would be nothing wrong with CLIPS syntax that couldn't be fixed with CLIPS syntax. Yes. I know about build and eval but they'll only take you so far. It's not that I'm unhappy with CLIPS, but I honestly believe a Lisp-based CLIPS would be so much better.
My apologies to Mark. This rant has nothing to do with JBoss Drools. It's just that his post had the magic words in it ;-)