5 ms·

> In 2016 I would also heavily consider Java 8 for the same team usage vs when I started using Scala in 2011. Out of curiosity, would Clojure be up for conside

by dwc 10y ago

> In 2016 I would also heavily consider Java 8 for the same team usage vs when I started using Scala in 2011. Out of curiosity, would Clojure be up for consideration? Why? Why not?

virmundi 10y ago
From my personal experience, no. I like Clojure. I like the fact that everything is map or list or set. I like that with Specter Clojure becomes really useable. What I don't like is that tooling is either missing, terrible at battery life on Mac or incredibly complex to learn. Intellij sucks battery because it locks the high performance graphics card on. Counterclockwise is nice, but it's got a background task that spins every minute or so. That drains the battery too. Atom drains the battery because it's Chrome-based. Emacs is...Emacs. Could be nice, but holy crap the learning curve. Finally, there doesn't appear to be a great DI library like Spring. Component works, but its naming and interaction flows are confusing. I do like Clojure. I've got a few project for Clojure around ArangoDB. After all of this, I'm switching back to Eclipse (Spring STS), Java 1.8 and Spring. For all the language issues, I can knock the project out in a few months. I can probably train my wife quickly in it too.
dskrvk 10y ago
Clojure is great, beautiful and simple, but it requires either good discipline and lots of tests, or good discipline and something like Clojure.typed, Schematic, or Clojure.spec. Otherwise there's just too many silly type errors at runtime. The good thing is that "runtime" doesn't have to be production - you can experiment with live data in a REPL and flush out most of the bugs, which of course doesn't diminish the need for good tests. I wouldn't recommend it for teams consisting only of junior developers and/or large codebases, where it can be hard to maintain good hygiene in the long run.

5 ms·

> In 2016 I would also heavily consider Java 8 for the same team usage vs when I started using Scala in 2011. Out of curiosity, would Clojure be up for conside

by dwc 10y ago

> In 2016 I would also heavily consider Java 8 for the same team usage vs when I started using Scala in 2011. Out of curiosity, would Clojure be up for consideration? Why? Why not?

virmundi 10y ago
From my personal experience, no. I like Clojure. I like the fact that everything is map or list or set. I like that with Specter Clojure becomes really useable. What I don't like is that tooling is either missing, terrible at battery life on Mac or incredibly complex to learn. Intellij sucks battery because it locks the high performance graphics card on. Counterclockwise is nice, but it's got a background task that spins every minute or so. That drains the battery too. Atom drains the battery because it's Chrome-based. Emacs is...Emacs. Could be nice, but holy crap the learning curve. Finally, there doesn't appear to be a great DI library like Spring. Component works, but its naming and interaction flows are confusing. I do like Clojure. I've got a few project for Clojure around ArangoDB. After all of this, I'm switching back to Eclipse (Spring STS), Java 1.8 and Spring. For all the language issues, I can knock the project out in a few months. I can probably train my wife quickly in it too.
dskrvk 10y ago
Clojure is great, beautiful and simple, but it requires either good discipline and lots of tests, or good discipline and something like Clojure.typed, Schematic, or Clojure.spec. Otherwise there's just too many silly type errors at runtime. The good thing is that "runtime" doesn't have to be production - you can experiment with live data in a REPL and flush out most of the bugs, which of course doesn't diminish the need for good tests. I wouldn't recommend it for teams consisting only of junior developers and/or large codebases, where it can be hard to maintain good hygiene in the long run.