6 ms·

There is a good talk here, a series of talks. Clojure and Rich and the thinking of the entire Cognitect team (Fogus included, of course) have been so influentia

There is a good talk here, a series of talks. Clojure and Rich and the thinking of the entire Cognitect team (Fogus included, of course) have been so influential- intellectually- and many of its and his and their tenets have become mainstream, even dogma. That being concerned about "immutability" is a practice these days is at least partly due to Rich. Can you imagine programming without immutability? But a big part of Clojure's story has not just been in the ideas, but also in the details of the design and implementation. From the performance guarantees of the persistent data structure implementation, to the idioms around parameter ordering, both of which I was appreciating yet again earlier today- aside from the ideas, there are ergonomics that only make themselves known through use, like easter eggs. So there is much to mine in tracing through the history of the implementation, revealing those easter eggs in nascent form.

dwohnitmok 7y ago
I think that's focusing on the non-unique parts of Clojure. Clojure was a product of the 2000s, a generation of interop-focused FP languages (Scala, F#, and Clojure foremost among them) that were deeply influenced by the functional programming languages of the 90s (mainly thinking of Haskell and OCaml here). Immutability and FP are not the new things that Clojure brought to the table. While Clojure transients are a fascinating tool and derived from its implementation of immutable data structures, otherwise its immutable data structures are roughly in the same ballpark as other languages. And parameter ordering is something that I think Rich has walked back occasionally (I remember a talk at some point where he talked about his skepticism of the entire idea of parameter ordering vs just named parameters or its equivalent, e.g. passing in a map). Clojure's main shtick (at least its main influence on me) is a combination of image-oriented programming (that is a live REPL that lets you edit a program you're writing on the fly without needing to restart the program) with a strong distrust of any abstractions that extend beyond immutable collections (Clojure's mantra of focusing on data). This combination is a bit unique. You had some of the latter in "classical" Haskell (that is Haskell from the 90s and 2000s that was quite skeptical of user-defined typeclasses compared to modern-day GHC Haskell where some codebases use typeclasses out the wazoo), that emphasized using algebraic data types over typeclasses and higher-order functions and demanded that any typeclasses had associated laws. OCaml still has a lot of that today. Then you had other languages with the former, such as Smalltalk and Common Lisp. But those two languages never really treated immutable collections as essentially the end-all-be-all of abstractions (certainly not Smalltalk where the idea of independent data is almost antithetical to its premise!). This is definitely an exaggeration; Clojure does have facilities for other abstractions and being an FP language it certainly has higher-order functions, but the community shies away from those as much as possible. But Clojure in my mind is the first to marry those two ideas together and see how far things can go.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- elangoc 7y ago
  I agree with the grandparent comment. The parent comment sounds like a random and non representative sampling of what makes Clojure unique. Both parent and grandparent correctly identify that many Clojure ideas come from elsewhere. Lisp and hosting on the JVM were not new. Immutability and persistent data structures weren't new ideas. But putting them into one and making it performant was a paper published by people in the Clojure community (Rich was the lead author). Clojure describes itself as data-oriented. That means not just the primacy of data, but of plain data, unadorned: https://youtu.be/VSdnJDO-xdg https://youtu.be/VSdnJDO-xdg What I find almost unique Clojure is that there's a philosophy to it that resonates throughout in it's design decisions: simplicity. Data is simpler than code, and code is simpler than macros, so prefer data and leave macros so a last resort. Libraries are simple, frameworks are complex. Plain data is simple, and the knock on effects of every library converting to & from plain data is powerful. But it only reveals itself after using Clojure for a while. Immutability allows for simpler code that you can reason about. Isolating state into containers allows you to characterize, control, and reduce touch points with state, which is necessary yet a source of complexity. You can see the same set of ideas that underpin the design of Clojure to be present in follow on library additions (reducers/transducers, async, Datomic, etc). There's simplicity, often manifested in immutability and the associative model of information (everything is a map), at least.
  - dwohnitmok 7y ago
    > everything is a map This I strongly agree with. Clojure's insistence on carrying through with its core immutable collections everywhere it can is a defining feature of the language IMO. I mean at the end of the day we're talking about personal influence so I can't really argue with you thinking that what I'm talking about is random. Nonetheless personally I don't find the JVM to be a definitional feature of Clojure. E.g. Clojurescript feels just as Clojure-y to me as JVM Clojure. Likewise I think simplicity is in the eyes of the beholder. Personally I think (the current presentation of) transducers and core.async are both too complex (and in the former's case complected to use a Clojure-ism). The latter I think is better served by manifold and the former, man I really need to write this up at some point since this keeps coming up, but transducers don't need to be higher order functions on reducers. Every transducer is exactly equivalent to a function from a -> List b (again yes this presentation is agnostic of source and therefore holds even for something like channels despite the presence of a concrete list). The only thing that you get from its presentation as a higher order function is reusing function composition which I view as bearing all the hallmarks of complection. It goes the "opposite" direction you'd expect and it's hardly ever used as "function" composition (when's the last time you composed a transducer with something that wasn't another transducer?).
vnorilo 7y ago
As Rich himself wrote, none of these ideas or implementation strategies were novel or original in clj. What appeals to me (as well) is how tastefully it was put together. A bit like the typical clj project that composes smallish libraries. The strength of the ecosystem is in how well those snap together, which comes back to the tasteful bit - great synergy and universal use of the core language features.
codesections 7y ago
> Can you imagine programming without immutability? Yes. Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of immutable data and think it is often the best approach. But I also think it is far from the default in many production systems. If you cannot imagine programming without it, it is possible that you may be working in a (wonderful, functional) bubble.
- jonahbenton 7y ago
  Point taken, was poorly stated. Context- I very clearly remember arriving at the benefits of the idea of immutability long before Clojure but I didn't have the word immutability or a hook in the public discourse to connect it to. There were of course related concepts and projects from the late 1990s and early 2000s- idempotent operations in HTTP, log-based file systems, packaging systems like NixOS, some PL papers- but prior to Rich's early popularity I remember difficulties on various projects in explaining this approach to those for whom it was a new idea. I feel like shortly after Clojure and Rich's talks, the idea- the term "immutability"- achieved R > 1 spread and it quickly became a default design principle. So the point would be better stated- can you imagine (or remember) when you didn't have the term immutability to refer in shorthand to?

dwohnitmok 7y ago

I think that's focusing on the non-unique parts of Clojure. Clojure was a product of the 2000s, a generation of interop-focused FP languages (Scala, F#, and Clojure foremost among them) that were deeply influenced by the functional programming languages of the 90s (mainly thinking of Haskell and OCaml here). Immutability and FP are not the new things that Clojure brought to the table. While Clojure transients are a fascinating tool and derived from its implementation of immutable data structures, otherwise its immutable data structures are roughly in the same ballpark as other languages. And parameter ordering is something that I think Rich has walked back occasionally (I remember a talk at some point where he talked about his skepticism of the entire idea of parameter ordering vs just named parameters or its equivalent, e.g. passing in a map). Clojure's main shtick (at least its main influence on me) is a combination of image-oriented programming (that is a live REPL that lets you edit a program you're writing on the fly without needing to restart the program) with a strong distrust of any abstractions that extend beyond immutable collections (Clojure's mantra of focusing on data). This combination is a bit unique. You had some of the latter in "classical" Haskell (that is Haskell from the 90s and 2000s that was quite skeptical of user-defined typeclasses compared to modern-day GHC Haskell where some codebases use typeclasses out the wazoo), that emphasized using algebraic data types over typeclasses and higher-order functions and demanded that any typeclasses had associated laws. OCaml still has a lot of that today. Then you had other languages with the former, such as Smalltalk and Common Lisp. But those two languages never really treated immutable collections as essentially the end-all-be-all of abstractions (certainly not Smalltalk where the idea of independent data is almost antithetical to its premise!). This is definitely an exaggeration; Clojure does have facilities for other abstractions and being an FP language it certainly has higher-order functions, but the community shies away from those as much as possible. But Clojure in my mind is the first to marry those two ideas together and see how far things can go.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
elangoc 7y ago
I agree with the grandparent comment. The parent comment sounds like a random and non representative sampling of what makes Clojure unique. Both parent and grandparent correctly identify that many Clojure ideas come from elsewhere. Lisp and hosting on the JVM were not new. Immutability and persistent data structures weren't new ideas. But putting them into one and making it performant was a paper published by people in the Clojure community (Rich was the lead author). Clojure describes itself as data-oriented. That means not just the primacy of data, but of plain data, unadorned: https://youtu.be/VSdnJDO-xdg https://youtu.be/VSdnJDO-xdg What I find almost unique Clojure is that there's a philosophy to it that resonates throughout in it's design decisions: simplicity. Data is simpler than code, and code is simpler than macros, so prefer data and leave macros so a last resort. Libraries are simple, frameworks are complex. Plain data is simple, and the knock on effects of every library converting to & from plain data is powerful. But it only reveals itself after using Clojure for a while. Immutability allows for simpler code that you can reason about. Isolating state into containers allows you to characterize, control, and reduce touch points with state, which is necessary yet a source of complexity. You can see the same set of ideas that underpin the design of Clojure to be present in follow on library additions (reducers/transducers, async, Datomic, etc). There's simplicity, often manifested in immutability and the associative model of information (everything is a map), at least.
- dwohnitmok 7y ago
  > everything is a map This I strongly agree with. Clojure's insistence on carrying through with its core immutable collections everywhere it can is a defining feature of the language IMO. I mean at the end of the day we're talking about personal influence so I can't really argue with you thinking that what I'm talking about is random. Nonetheless personally I don't find the JVM to be a definitional feature of Clojure. E.g. Clojurescript feels just as Clojure-y to me as JVM Clojure. Likewise I think simplicity is in the eyes of the beholder. Personally I think (the current presentation of) transducers and core.async are both too complex (and in the former's case complected to use a Clojure-ism). The latter I think is better served by manifold and the former, man I really need to write this up at some point since this keeps coming up, but transducers don't need to be higher order functions on reducers. Every transducer is exactly equivalent to a function from a -> List b (again yes this presentation is agnostic of source and therefore holds even for something like channels despite the presence of a concrete list). The only thing that you get from its presentation as a higher order function is reusing function composition which I view as bearing all the hallmarks of complection. It goes the "opposite" direction you'd expect and it's hardly ever used as "function" composition (when's the last time you composed a transducer with something that wasn't another transducer?).

vnorilo 7y ago

As Rich himself wrote, none of these ideas or implementation strategies were novel or original in clj. What appeals to me (as well) is how tastefully it was put together. A bit like the typical clj project that composes smallish libraries. The strength of the ecosystem is in how well those snap together, which comes back to the tasteful bit - great synergy and universal use of the core language features.

codesections 7y ago

> Can you imagine programming without immutability? Yes. Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of immutable data and think it is often the best approach. But I also think it is far from the default in many production systems. If you cannot imagine programming without it, it is possible that you may be working in a (wonderful, functional) bubble.

jonahbenton 7y ago
Point taken, was poorly stated. Context- I very clearly remember arriving at the benefits of the idea of immutability long before Clojure but I didn't have the word immutability or a hook in the public discourse to connect it to. There were of course related concepts and projects from the late 1990s and early 2000s- idempotent operations in HTTP, log-based file systems, packaging systems like NixOS, some PL papers- but prior to Rich's early popularity I remember difficulties on various projects in explaining this approach to those for whom it was a new idea. I feel like shortly after Clojure and Rich's talks, the idea- the term "immutability"- achieved R > 1 spread and it quickly became a default design principle. So the point would be better stated- can you imagine (or remember) when you didn't have the term immutability to refer in shorthand to?