4 ms·

The poor design of that class aside, I would rather have the specific version rather than the unspecified version. If I have a HttpServletRequest somewhere in m

The poor design of that class aside, I would rather have the specific version rather than the unspecified version. If I have a HttpServletRequest somewhere in my code, I have a good idea of its structure just by knowing its type. The same cannot be said of a blob of maps and lists.

simongray 6y ago
> If I have a HttpServletRequest somewhere in my code, I have a good idea of its structure just by knowing its type. The same cannot be said of a blob of maps and lists. Non-trivial data structures are always conformed to some specification, doesn't matter if its Clojure or an OOP-language. If you receive an HTTP request over the wire you will have to check it. Once you conform it to the specification you know exactly how it looks and there's no need to jump through hoops to access the information.
- kqr 6y ago
  But with proper static typing you don't have to check it because you already know it's correct since it's construction. It relieves a lot of mental burden for me to not even have to consider the case that it might be incorrect, as long as I'm dealing with structures internal to my program. I have a lot of respect for Rich Hickey and I feel like he Understands something that goes straight over my head, but his appreciation for generic, shapeless maps and lists is something I just don't get.
  - simongray 6y ago
    > But with proper static typing you don't have to check it because you already know it's correct since it's construction. Its construction is dependent on it conforming to a specific form. In this case, your statically typed data comes from a parsed string that is then conformed to a specification to ensure that is has a certain shape. In Clojure you would just do the conforming to specification part and keep the data generic. I think the appreciation for generic data has to do with the fact the fact that it makes Clojure code very generic and facilitates a lot of functional composition.

simongray 6y ago

> If I have a HttpServletRequest somewhere in my code, I have a good idea of its structure just by knowing its type. The same cannot be said of a blob of maps and lists. Non-trivial data structures are always conformed to some specification, doesn't matter if its Clojure or an OOP-language. If you receive an HTTP request over the wire you will have to check it. Once you conform it to the specification you know exactly how it looks and there's no need to jump through hoops to access the information.

kqr 6y ago
But with proper static typing you don't have to check it because you already know it's correct since it's construction. It relieves a lot of mental burden for me to not even have to consider the case that it might be incorrect, as long as I'm dealing with structures internal to my program. I have a lot of respect for Rich Hickey and I feel like he Understands something that goes straight over my head, but his appreciation for generic, shapeless maps and lists is something I just don't get.
- simongray 6y ago
  > But with proper static typing you don't have to check it because you already know it's correct since it's construction. Its construction is dependent on it conforming to a specific form. In this case, your statically typed data comes from a parsed string that is then conformed to a specification to ensure that is has a certain shape. In Clojure you would just do the conforming to specification part and keep the data generic. I think the appreciation for generic data has to do with the fact the fact that it makes Clojure code very generic and facilitates a lot of functional composition.