7 ms·

Yep, that's why Clojure struggling and has no future. Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming language

Yep, that's why Clojure struggling and has no future. Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming languages like JS/Python/Ruby.

lmilcin 7y ago
That is only if you try to program Clojure as if you were programming JS/Python/Ruby. In this case I can understand you may think this is funky, strange but otherwise useless language. The trick with any Lisp is to "get it". Once you do there is no comparison between Lisps and any non-Lisp language. Let's compare it in some useful way. If I was assembly developer for my entire life, "getting" C++ would be comparable to getting Lisp for any JS/Python/Ruby developer. From my point of view JS/Python/Ruby is just a reiteration, variation on roughly similar, impaired subset of features that I can roll off in Lisp on my leisure. By definition, any language feature can be written in Lisp (well... more in Common Lisp than in Clojure which is hindered by its integration with Java environment) which is something that is really hard to grasp until you start rolling off your own language for any problem you try to solve (and one reason Lisp programmers are so much hated by other programmers).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Scarbutt 7y ago
  Should have phrase that differently. This is a case of "worse is better". I know Clojure well and, IMO, it's the best language in the world for writing application/business logic. Many times, when programming in JS/Python, those just feel stupid to me. But that doesn't stop many programmers from writing impressive stuff and being super productive in JS/Python/Ruby, why? because they are great developers and can apply their knowledge to most languages. Having said that, and going back to the original point, Clojure struggles and will continue to struggle because it doesn't have any strong hold in any domain, in contrast to JS/Python/Ruby. Each of these have big ecosystems of libraries, documentation, big market share in various domains and big job markets. So yeah, worse its better.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anonymoushn 7y ago
  Clojure seems to be a whole-program transformation away from having continuations or tail calls. It is hard to apply such whole-program transformations while using libraries.
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    Bothe are due to unfortunate decision to run Clojure on JVM and conform to Java calling convention.
- smabie 7y ago
  I dunno, I've programmed professionally in both Racket and Common Lisp and would only choose Racket if I was implementing a DSL or something (and I would never choose CL for anything). The heavyweight syntax and dynamic nature are really only worth it in programs that are modifying the AST very frequently. I think a statically type functional language such as OCaml, F#, or Scala are much more suited for general purpose programming. I might be weird, but if I'm dealing with a Lisp codebase that is over, say, 10 kloc, I get a distinct feeling of unease, though this applies to really any dynamic language as well. The productivity and performance benefits of an expressive type system cannot be understated.
- kazinator 7y ago
  If the only parenthetical language you know is Clojure, and you think that is what Lisp is about, you seriously have the wrong idea. That is the reason why you think that the gap between Lisp and Pyhon/JS/Ruby is so vast. But in fact those are Lisp-inspired languages that take their basic paradigm from Lisp.
dig1 7y ago
Clojure is not designed to appeal masses, but to solve complex problems and keep things sane. And if you notice around, specialized industrial tools aren't pretty, but are sharp. > Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming languages like JS/Python/Ruby. Don't get me wrong, but this can be said only by someone who never used it seriously or simply didn't get it. Reminds me on Scheme/Racket complains from students who took classes only for GPA or simply got in wrong university.
cultus 7y ago
People have been saying Clojure is dying for years, but there's plenty of people using it to great effect. I'm more productive in Clojure than in any other language, and I have access to a wide array of Clojure and JVM libraries. The power it gives me lets me spit out solutions to problems much faster than less expressive languages like Python. Perhaps you haven't really programmed enough in Lisps to really get the point of them.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Outside Java it is my favourite JVM language, but I think it used to be more popular, I know a couple of business that started with Clojure in 2014 and I am not sure if they would still go with it nowadays.
fulafel 7y ago
Looking at your post history, you seem to be on a mission against Clojure... is there a backstory?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dropit_sphere 7y ago
This is news to me as someone taking a break from a greenfield CLJS app to procrastinate on HN...

Yep, that's why Clojure struggling and has no future. Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming languages like JS/Python/Ruby.

lmilcin 7y ago

That is only if you try to program Clojure as if you were programming JS/Python/Ruby. In this case I can understand you may think this is funky, strange but otherwise useless language. The trick with any Lisp is to "get it". Once you do there is no comparison between Lisps and any non-Lisp language. Let's compare it in some useful way. If I was assembly developer for my entire life, "getting" C++ would be comparable to getting Lisp for any JS/Python/Ruby developer. From my point of view JS/Python/Ruby is just a reiteration, variation on roughly similar, impaired subset of features that I can roll off in Lisp on my leisure. By definition, any language feature can be written in Lisp (well... more in Common Lisp than in Clojure which is hindered by its integration with Java environment) which is something that is really hard to grasp until you start rolling off your own language for any problem you try to solve (and one reason Lisp programmers are so much hated by other programmers).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Scarbutt 7y ago
Should have phrase that differently. This is a case of "worse is better". I know Clojure well and, IMO, it's the best language in the world for writing application/business logic. Many times, when programming in JS/Python, those just feel stupid to me. But that doesn't stop many programmers from writing impressive stuff and being super productive in JS/Python/Ruby, why? because they are great developers and can apply their knowledge to most languages. Having said that, and going back to the original point, Clojure struggles and will continue to struggle because it doesn't have any strong hold in any domain, in contrast to JS/Python/Ruby. Each of these have big ecosystems of libraries, documentation, big market share in various domains and big job markets. So yeah, worse its better.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anonymoushn 7y ago
Clojure seems to be a whole-program transformation away from having continuations or tail calls. It is hard to apply such whole-program transformations while using libraries.
- lmilcin 7y ago
  Bothe are due to unfortunate decision to run Clojure on JVM and conform to Java calling convention.
smabie 7y ago
I dunno, I've programmed professionally in both Racket and Common Lisp and would only choose Racket if I was implementing a DSL or something (and I would never choose CL for anything). The heavyweight syntax and dynamic nature are really only worth it in programs that are modifying the AST very frequently. I think a statically type functional language such as OCaml, F#, or Scala are much more suited for general purpose programming. I might be weird, but if I'm dealing with a Lisp codebase that is over, say, 10 kloc, I get a distinct feeling of unease, though this applies to really any dynamic language as well. The productivity and performance benefits of an expressive type system cannot be understated.
kazinator 7y ago
If the only parenthetical language you know is Clojure, and you think that is what Lisp is about, you seriously have the wrong idea. That is the reason why you think that the gap between Lisp and Pyhon/JS/Ruby is so vast. But in fact those are Lisp-inspired languages that take their basic paradigm from Lisp.

dig1 7y ago

Clojure is not designed to appeal masses, but to solve complex problems and keep things sane. And if you notice around, specialized industrial tools aren't pretty, but are sharp. > Not strong in any domain and doesn't have any fundamental benefits over other dynamic programming languages like JS/Python/Ruby. Don't get me wrong, but this can be said only by someone who never used it seriously or simply didn't get it. Reminds me on Scheme/Racket complains from students who took classes only for GPA or simply got in wrong university.

cultus 7y ago

People have been saying Clojure is dying for years, but there's plenty of people using it to great effect. I'm more productive in Clojure than in any other language, and I have access to a wide array of Clojure and JVM libraries. The power it gives me lets me spit out solutions to problems much faster than less expressive languages like Python. Perhaps you haven't really programmed enough in Lisps to really get the point of them.

pjmlp 7y ago
Outside Java it is my favourite JVM language, but I think it used to be more popular, I know a couple of business that started with Clojure in 2014 and I am not sure if they would still go with it nowadays.

fulafel 7y ago

Looking at your post history, you seem to be on a mission against Clojure... is there a backstory?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dropit_sphere 7y ago

This is news to me as someone taking a break from a greenfield CLJS app to procrastinate on HN...