3 ms·

While simplicity may matter, I believe Clojure to be a poor example of it -- it's a lot of functions all thrown together in basically one namespace, with poor e

While simplicity may matter, I believe Clojure to be a poor example of it -- it's a lot of functions all thrown together in basically one namespace, with poor error handling, and a tendancy to throw a 50 line traceback with a lot of random symbols in it. Clojure macros are the antithesis of simple, and the need to indent a scope for every new variable actually fights against TDD in my experience. I recently wrote a good chunk of a RESTful SQL-backed application in Python in two days that took a team of 3 people in Clojure over 2 months to just get to the basic level of library support one would expect from things like sqlalchemy and flask. Clojure isn't simple -- it's basically a step up from assembler in how little it provides. Simplicity is having all the power tools and being able to put them together and be instantly productive, and to support programming in multiple paradigms. While it's not the norm, I sometimes feel many FP purists spend so much time debating purity and giving basic concepts complex names - when they could be using something else and getting much more done. Side effects aren't the devil and are sometimes neccessary to get real work done. Bad code can be written in anything, and it just takes experience. I'd much rather see a language focus on readability, maintaince, and rapid prototyping than side effects. Functional programming concepts have benefits - I love list comprehensions and functools.partial in python is pretty neat, but when you can also have a decent object system, and embrace imperative when steps are truly imperative, you can get a whole lot more done.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Daishiman 11y ago
It's unfortunate that you got downvoted, because while people may not agree with this there is definitely something to this. My approaches to Clojure have been seriously hampered by the fact that some of the abstractions above those that are "simple" are remarkably complex, and that the tools that surround the ecosystem are still pretty frail. Macro bugs are certainly something that have scared me away for a while.
- j-pb 11y ago
  Macros are for extending the language, I have never in 2 years of professional clojure dev, used a single macro in problem domain code. I've written a few libraries that are supposed to extend the language, but I've only used them rarely there too, maybe under a dozen times.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    Sure, but when there's bugs in the caller of macros I have to figure out what exactly is going on, and that's where the rubber meets the road.
- mpdehaan2 11y ago
  Yeah, exactly. My experiences were around looking for a quality ORM, job scheduler, and web framework - things like korma and ring exist - but they lack a large amount of features compared to equivalents found in /most other/ languages. I came to the conclusion that Clojure is an acceptable way to call Java SDKs if you want a bit higher Java velocity AND Lisp fits your brain already, but I'd rather pick up Scala or Groovy instead for that purpose. Libs in pure clojure, for which I tried dozens, were usually incomplete and error-prone even if they were community favorites, which I attribute in part to the fact that it's a small circle of developers using it, and the language is still newish.
undershirt 11y ago
you might want to look at clojure again. that comment reads like babble
weavejester 11y ago
Rich uses a very precise and archaic definition of simplicity, which he describes in his "Simple Made Easy" talk. In a nutshell, when Rich talks about making something simple, he's talking about limiting the number of things that can affect it. For example, under this definition, the simplest thing possible is immutable data, since nothing can affect it. The next simplest things are pure functions, because they're affected only by their arguments. Clojure is a language built around Rich's idea of simplicity, so Clojure prefers data over pure functions, and pure functions over side-effectful functions. What you're describing is what Rich would likely term "easy". Something is easy if you can do it with little effort. Something is simple if few things affect it.
sheepmullet 11y ago
> I recently wrote a good chunk of a RESTful SQL-backed application in Python in two days that took a team of 3 people in Clojure over 2 months to just get to the basic level of library support one would expect from things like sqlalchemy and flask. Nonsense. Java library interop is great. If you could write it in 2 days in Python then it wouldn't take more than a week in clojure. In the very worst case scenario you could simply write "Java in Clojure" and directly use Java libraries. > Clojure isn't simple -- it's basically a step up from assembler in how little it provides. It gives you full access to the JVM and its tens of thousands of man years worth of high quality libraries. As for the language itself it has macros, first class functions, built in vectors and maps, structural editing, fantastic REPL support, and a top rate concurrency story to name a few features.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Daishiman 11y ago

It's unfortunate that you got downvoted, because while people may not agree with this there is definitely something to this. My approaches to Clojure have been seriously hampered by the fact that some of the abstractions above those that are "simple" are remarkably complex, and that the tools that surround the ecosystem are still pretty frail. Macro bugs are certainly something that have scared me away for a while.

j-pb 11y ago
Macros are for extending the language, I have never in 2 years of professional clojure dev, used a single macro in problem domain code. I've written a few libraries that are supposed to extend the language, but I've only used them rarely there too, maybe under a dozen times.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Sure, but when there's bugs in the caller of macros I have to figure out what exactly is going on, and that's where the rubber meets the road.
mpdehaan2 11y ago
Yeah, exactly. My experiences were around looking for a quality ORM, job scheduler, and web framework - things like korma and ring exist - but they lack a large amount of features compared to equivalents found in /most other/ languages. I came to the conclusion that Clojure is an acceptable way to call Java SDKs if you want a bit higher Java velocity AND Lisp fits your brain already, but I'd rather pick up Scala or Groovy instead for that purpose. Libs in pure clojure, for which I tried dozens, were usually incomplete and error-prone even if they were community favorites, which I attribute in part to the fact that it's a small circle of developers using it, and the language is still newish.

undershirt 11y ago

you might want to look at clojure again. that comment reads like babble

weavejester 11y ago

Rich uses a very precise and archaic definition of simplicity, which he describes in his "Simple Made Easy" talk. In a nutshell, when Rich talks about making something simple, he's talking about limiting the number of things that can affect it. For example, under this definition, the simplest thing possible is immutable data, since nothing can affect it. The next simplest things are pure functions, because they're affected only by their arguments. Clojure is a language built around Rich's idea of simplicity, so Clojure prefers data over pure functions, and pure functions over side-effectful functions. What you're describing is what Rich would likely term "easy". Something is easy if you can do it with little effort. Something is simple if few things affect it.

sheepmullet 11y ago

> I recently wrote a good chunk of a RESTful SQL-backed application in Python in two days that took a team of 3 people in Clojure over 2 months to just get to the basic level of library support one would expect from things like sqlalchemy and flask. Nonsense. Java library interop is great. If you could write it in 2 days in Python then it wouldn't take more than a week in clojure. In the very worst case scenario you could simply write "Java in Clojure" and directly use Java libraries. > Clojure isn't simple -- it's basically a step up from assembler in how little it provides. It gives you full access to the JVM and its tens of thousands of man years worth of high quality libraries. As for the language itself it has macros, first class functions, built in vectors and maps, structural editing, fantastic REPL support, and a top rate concurrency story to name a few features.