3 ms·

I see a lot of issues but not a lot of PRs. As a maintainer there is a lot of prioritization going on, and it seems that the things that bother the blog author

by awwaiid 10y ago

I see a lot of issues but not a lot of PRs. As a maintainer there is a lot of prioritization going on, and it seems that the things that bother the blog author are not things that bother the maintainers. I also agree with some of the replies on the issues - garbage in garbage out for a function is ok behavior. One of the cool things about clojure and other languages like this is that these things can often be fixed at runtime - so even if your fix doesn't get accepted you can have a "my-better-fixes" lib you pull in for yourself. A "consistent-set-opts" lib you add to your project.cls for example.

bpicolo 10y ago
In what way is "garbage in garbage out" better than consistent handling and explicit failure, especially for something so well-defined mathematically? That's sort of a lazy argument, imo. I shouldn't need to pull in more libs for baseline language expectations, either. Core libraries are what languages really are, much more important than just syntax.
- dragandj 10y ago
  Because checks to avoid some kinds of garbage can incure significant performance penalty. There is always a tradeoff in that sense, and I think Clojure is pretty well balanced in that way. So, read the docs, try the functions out to see how they work, write tests, and sanitize the data at the appropriate place.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    If it's good enough for ANSI C, it's good enough for you...
  - bpicolo 10y ago
    Matters so rarely that it's far better to rewrite in those cases when necessary.
    - dragandj 10y ago
      In core libraries? If low-level functions checked the inputs for each odd case, they'd (often unnecessarily) spend 90% of time doing those checks.
maherbeg 10y ago
I strongly disagree with garbage in, garbage out. We as programmers and engineers should strive for better tooling in all aspects. I firmly believe that reducing footguns and making our tooling help nudge us in the right direction are extremely important qualities.

by awwaiid 10y ago

bpicolo 10y ago

In what way is "garbage in garbage out" better than consistent handling and explicit failure, especially for something so well-defined mathematically? That's sort of a lazy argument, imo. I shouldn't need to pull in more libs for baseline language expectations, either. Core libraries are what languages really are, much more important than just syntax.

dragandj 10y ago
Because checks to avoid some kinds of garbage can incure significant performance penalty. There is always a tradeoff in that sense, and I think Clojure is pretty well balanced in that way. So, read the docs, try the functions out to see how they work, write tests, and sanitize the data at the appropriate place.
- mcguire 10y ago
  If it's good enough for ANSI C, it's good enough for you...
- bpicolo 10y ago
  Matters so rarely that it's far better to rewrite in those cases when necessary.
  - dragandj 10y ago
    In core libraries? If low-level functions checked the inputs for each odd case, they'd (often unnecessarily) spend 90% of time doing those checks.

maherbeg 10y ago

I strongly disagree with garbage in, garbage out. We as programmers and engineers should strive for better tooling in all aspects. I firmly believe that reducing footguns and making our tooling help nudge us in the right direction are extremely important qualities.