> I wondered why there’s a reduce in clojure.core but no fold? (It’s just a different arity of reduce that’s missing the initial state.) There is literally an

> I wondered why there’s a reduce in clojure.core but no fold? (It’s just a different arity of reduce that’s missing the initial state.) There is literally an arity of reduce which skips the initial state. Check out `(doc reduce)`. > No tuple type? Vectors are tuples. “What if one of the vectors is of a different length?” I gasped as I clutched my pearl monads. `s/tuple` is the answer to that question. > This ties into another concept that was new to me: applying a sequence of arguments to a function. You're not applying the sequence to the fn. This is "function application", so you're applying the fn to the sequence. In Clojure, you have some data, you apply a fn to it, then you have some transformed data. Rinse and repeat. Also, check out `(doc apply)`. > I’ve read/heard the Clojure designers encourage the use of namespaced keywords, but I rarely encounter them outside clojure.spec definitions. As other people have done in the comments here, I make a case for namespace keywords here [1]. > I can’t talk about data in Clojure without talking about clojure.spec! Please be sure to check out Clojure spec's instrumentation, along with Orchestra [2] to further improve the experience. My team uses `defn-spec` for basically every fn in both our front-end and back-end code; all of the data is spec'd, with shared specs between front-end and back-end, and we get full instrumentation during development and testing. Thanks to macros, that can disappear completely in production. 1: https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/10/31/clojure-keywords/ https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/10/31/clojure-keywords/ 2: https://github.com/jeaye/orchestra https://github.com/jeaye/orchestra