3 ms·

Pay for a language doesn't reflect skill, or even implied skill. Its simply a function of demand and supply At $financial-news company, someone decided that th

Pay for a language doesn't reflect skill, or even implied skill. Its simply a function of demand and supply At $financial-news company, someone decided that they should re-write a few critical parts of the system in closure, partly due to boredom, partly due incompetence. They swanned off, along with 90% of the other people who knew how to maintain closure. This left a bunch of junior java devs to maintain a ill thought out ego piece. This logically meant that said company had to spend a large amount of money of contractors to maintain the system whilst they re-wrote everything in the same language.

iLemming 8y ago
> Pay for a language doesn't reflect skill, or even implied skill In this case it sorta does: a) Clojure is known for having a bit of learning curve and being a Lisp, it rarely attracts newbie programmers b) it is famous for its concise syntax and for being able to build and maintain things with smaller teams. ROI of 3 Clojure devs is almost always can be predicted to be much higher than of 6-7 Java/Javascript/Python/ Ruby/etc. teams. Pick a few successful Clojure(script) projects and see how big the teams are, they are usually not that big c) Flexibility of Lisp lets you bend your code for different paradigms: functional, OOP, logic, relational, CSP, reactive, declarative. In my experience, when most other (practical) language acolytes simply ignore academia Haskellers and Clojurists tend to be genuinely interested in CS papers. I think that is due to their experience - again these languages usually attract more seasoned developers