5 ms·

My favorite thing about Clojure: You compose libraries, instead of totally buy into framework A or B. Some people prefer the opposite. However, Composition wo

My favorite thing about Clojure: You compose libraries, instead of totally buy into framework A or B. Some people prefer the opposite. However, Composition works in Clojure because everyone is using the staples: functions, maps and seqs. Pretty much everything in the language can work as one (or all!) of them. While I also like static types, this is my argument for a well designed dynanic language like Clojure or its Lisp relatives: stuff just snaps together like magic lego bricks.

Kalium 7y ago
Composing libraries instead of buying into a framework is a wonderful thing. It allows a developer to use just the parts they want, integrate them with just what the developer needs, and get on with whatever they're doing. It's a beautiful idea, and it can enable amazing levels of productivity. With that said, might it also be possible that there could be some drawbacks? Having worked in and with Clojure, I found the ecosystem incredibly immature. It's somewhere beyond arrogant - reckless comes to mind - for most engineers to do all their own plumbing for a web service. The odds that they'll manage to design someone easily long-term maintainable are slim. The chances of authorization, authentication, potential SQL injection, and a thousand other security things being handled well is effectively none - the Clojure ecosystem often seems wildly ignorant of such things. The core philosophy of just composing the libraries you need with Ring means that anything you don't actively think of will be likely entirely neglected. This is a dangerous way to ship code that will be facing the real internet. Clojure requires you to fit absolutely every aspect of everything you're doing into your head and be handled by you, because nothing is going to do it for you. The lovely magical LEGO feeling is, sadly, a lie. This stands in stark contrast to the level of consideration around maintenance and security that has gone into a modern, mature framework. Or a modern language where SAST is an option. Doing low-level stuff feels absolutely amazing! The sense of control, of having your hands in the guts and the ability to do what you need without wasting time on bullshit magic, is heady and glorious. It's just perhaps worth considering that that magic can sometimes be incredibly valuable, well worth the tradeoff against the feeling of freedom.
- vnorilo 7y ago
  Thank you for the viewpoint. It certainly has merit, but there is also the possibility of "metapackages" like luminus [1], a curated package of libraries that work well together. It's easier to make a framework in the land of libraries than vice versa. Some of what you perceive as immature may be that the community is small, and a lot remains to be done. [1] http://www.luminusweb.net/ http://www.luminusweb.net/
  - Kalium 7y ago
    You're absolutely right, it's easier to make a framework in the land of libraries. With that said, it may be more difficult to get one used when the culture of library-land abhors frameworks. The Clojure developers I've worked with so far mostly seem repulsed by the idea of using a framework. This leads me to fear that the ecosystem is likely to remain in the hole it has dug for itself. Possibility is wonderful, as you say, but it is unlikely to save applications being written today.
    - sooheon 7y ago
      > repulsed by the idea of using a framework I think this is one of the memes in the community which is starting to be reconsidered. You're not alone in seeing these downsides, and people are starting to write about it more (code and words). Things like Fulcro or even Datomic Cloud are very interesting developments in this regard. [1]: https://jacobobryant.com/post/2019/grow/ https://jacobobryant.com/post/2019/grow/ [2]: http://flyingmachinestudios.com/programming/why-programmers-need-frameworks/ http://flyingmachinestudios.com/programming/why-programmers-... [3]: https://github.com/fulcrologic/fulcro https://github.com/fulcrologic/fulcro
- Scarbutt 7y ago
  Really though, Clojure web apps are at the php-no-framework level security days, not joking. The most used HTML templater(hiccup) doesn't do any secure output escaping, bad password/session management, auth*, sql injection, bad encryption methods, its all there.
nextos 7y ago
Same here. Most software I like is also a set of composable objects. A bit more difficult to understand initially, but much simpler and more resilient in the long run. Examples include Emacs, Linux (especially distributions like NixOS or Arch) or classical Unix utilities.
agumonkey 7y ago
composing libraries is amazing but it leads to time investment to read about said libraries and find the ones that you want. That said Hickey gave a tiny argument to lessen the pain, the cost of freedom is often lesser than the cost of being jailed by a framework that cannot evolve

Kalium 7y ago

Composing libraries instead of buying into a framework is a wonderful thing. It allows a developer to use just the parts they want, integrate them with just what the developer needs, and get on with whatever they're doing. It's a beautiful idea, and it can enable amazing levels of productivity. With that said, might it also be possible that there could be some drawbacks? Having worked in and with Clojure, I found the ecosystem incredibly immature. It's somewhere beyond arrogant - reckless comes to mind - for most engineers to do all their own plumbing for a web service. The odds that they'll manage to design someone easily long-term maintainable are slim. The chances of authorization, authentication, potential SQL injection, and a thousand other security things being handled well is effectively none - the Clojure ecosystem often seems wildly ignorant of such things. The core philosophy of just composing the libraries you need with Ring means that anything you don't actively think of will be likely entirely neglected. This is a dangerous way to ship code that will be facing the real internet. Clojure requires you to fit absolutely every aspect of everything you're doing into your head and be handled by you, because nothing is going to do it for you. The lovely magical LEGO feeling is, sadly, a lie. This stands in stark contrast to the level of consideration around maintenance and security that has gone into a modern, mature framework. Or a modern language where SAST is an option. Doing low-level stuff feels absolutely amazing! The sense of control, of having your hands in the guts and the ability to do what you need without wasting time on bullshit magic, is heady and glorious. It's just perhaps worth considering that that magic can sometimes be incredibly valuable, well worth the tradeoff against the feeling of freedom.

vnorilo 7y ago
Thank you for the viewpoint. It certainly has merit, but there is also the possibility of "metapackages" like luminus [1], a curated package of libraries that work well together. It's easier to make a framework in the land of libraries than vice versa. Some of what you perceive as immature may be that the community is small, and a lot remains to be done. [1] http://www.luminusweb.net/ http://www.luminusweb.net/
- Kalium 7y ago
  You're absolutely right, it's easier to make a framework in the land of libraries. With that said, it may be more difficult to get one used when the culture of library-land abhors frameworks. The Clojure developers I've worked with so far mostly seem repulsed by the idea of using a framework. This leads me to fear that the ecosystem is likely to remain in the hole it has dug for itself. Possibility is wonderful, as you say, but it is unlikely to save applications being written today.
  - sooheon 7y ago
    > repulsed by the idea of using a framework I think this is one of the memes in the community which is starting to be reconsidered. You're not alone in seeing these downsides, and people are starting to write about it more (code and words). Things like Fulcro or even Datomic Cloud are very interesting developments in this regard. [1]: https://jacobobryant.com/post/2019/grow/ https://jacobobryant.com/post/2019/grow/ [2]: http://flyingmachinestudios.com/programming/why-programmers-need-frameworks/ http://flyingmachinestudios.com/programming/why-programmers-... [3]: https://github.com/fulcrologic/fulcro https://github.com/fulcrologic/fulcro
Scarbutt 7y ago
Really though, Clojure web apps are at the php-no-framework level security days, not joking. The most used HTML templater(hiccup) doesn't do any secure output escaping, bad password/session management, auth*, sql injection, bad encryption methods, its all there.

nextos 7y ago

Same here. Most software I like is also a set of composable objects. A bit more difficult to understand initially, but much simpler and more resilient in the long run. Examples include Emacs, Linux (especially distributions like NixOS or Arch) or classical Unix utilities.

agumonkey 7y ago

composing libraries is amazing but it leads to time investment to read about said libraries and find the ones that you want. That said Hickey gave a tiny argument to lessen the pain, the cost of freedom is often lesser than the cost of being jailed by a framework that cannot evolve