3 ms·

Lisp is just a non-starter for a lot of people. Maybe it's an irrational bias but it's also widely prevalent. I think Lisp in all its flavors is in the same bu

Lisp is just a non-starter for a lot of people. Maybe it's an irrational bias but it's also widely prevalent. I think Lisp in all its flavors is in the same bucket with Haskell, i.e. not a language that will ever go mainstream but an important laboratory for exploring ideas that eventually trickle down into more mainstream languages. Clojurescript is a case in point. Statistically its userbase is zero but it's been the source of several useful techniques.

yogthos 11y ago
The relative numbers of users to other languages are not really interesting. The question is whether there are enough people using ClojureScript for it to be viable long term and can you get a job using it. The answer to both questions is a yes. There are thousands of people working with ClojureScript today and there are lots of companies hiring for Clojure/Script jobs at this very moment. In fact, the demand appears to outpace supply resulting in benefits such as accommodation for remote work (https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/3yhm7k/looking_for_remote_clojure_clojurescript/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/3yhm7k/looking_for...). Thanks to the irrational bias against Lisp you're also competing against a smaller pool of developers when you look for Clojure jobs. Seems like a win to me.
- cageface 11y ago
  I've been hearing this argument since I was heavily into Common Lisp in the early 2000s. Personally I like lisps so I hope Clojurescript does establish a viable niche. But it's not the case that number of users is irrelevant. If I commit to Clojurescript (or Haskell, or any other niche language), I'm cutting my prospective job market down by 95%+. This means fewer companies I can work with, fewer places I can live, and fewer gigs available overall. Some might consider the tradeoff worth it but I don't.
  - yogthos 11y ago
    I didn't say that the number of users is irrelevant. There needs to be a minimum user base to make a language viable, however beyond that it's just tradeoffs. While you might be cutting down the job market, you're also focusing on companies that are forward thinking, get to work with great technology, and get perks such as remote work. The most exciting part for me is that you get to shape the future of the ecosystem. Being on the ground floor of a new technology means that you get a lot of say in how it will evolve. For me the tradeoff was absolutely worth it, but I can understand how it's not for everyone.

yogthos 11y ago

The relative numbers of users to other languages are not really interesting. The question is whether there are enough people using ClojureScript for it to be viable long term and can you get a job using it. The answer to both questions is a yes. There are thousands of people working with ClojureScript today and there are lots of companies hiring for Clojure/Script jobs at this very moment. In fact, the demand appears to outpace supply resulting in benefits such as accommodation for remote work (https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/3yhm7k/looking_for_remote_clojure_clojurescript/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/3yhm7k/looking_for...). Thanks to the irrational bias against Lisp you're also competing against a smaller pool of developers when you look for Clojure jobs. Seems like a win to me.

cageface 11y ago
I've been hearing this argument since I was heavily into Common Lisp in the early 2000s. Personally I like lisps so I hope Clojurescript does establish a viable niche. But it's not the case that number of users is irrelevant. If I commit to Clojurescript (or Haskell, or any other niche language), I'm cutting my prospective job market down by 95%+. This means fewer companies I can work with, fewer places I can live, and fewer gigs available overall. Some might consider the tradeoff worth it but I don't.
- yogthos 11y ago
  I didn't say that the number of users is irrelevant. There needs to be a minimum user base to make a language viable, however beyond that it's just tradeoffs. While you might be cutting down the job market, you're also focusing on companies that are forward thinking, get to work with great technology, and get perks such as remote work. The most exciting part for me is that you get to shape the future of the ecosystem. Being on the ground floor of a new technology means that you get a lot of say in how it will evolve. For me the tradeoff was absolutely worth it, but I can understand how it's not for everyone.