3 ms·
> At the same time Clojure people do have a tendency to paper over the cracks quite a lot, at least some of which must be cognitive dissonance. An executive I
by Kalium 6y ago
> At the same time Clojure people do have a tendency to paper over the cracks quite a lot, at least some of which must be cognitive dissonance.
An executive I previously worked with commented one day "Every small language's following is a little bit cult-y. Clojure's is more so than most."
Personally, I think the technology itself is fine. The ecosystem, from my exposure to it, has a few warts. It's somewhat small, which I expect of what is still a niche language. The killer issue for me was the memes that slowed and discouraged the development of useful frameworks in favor of gluing together ad-hoc sets of libraries.
Of course, it may have just been that I was working with a batch of Clojure devs who were in those jobs because they were sold on the glories of functional programming purity. Hard to say. They were better than the Haskell shop I worked in, but not as much so as I would have liked.
- thom 6y agoCan’t argue with this, I find it immensely frustrating. I’m on my fifth or sixth library for interacting with a database, my third component library, fourth or fifth config library, and the data science story especially has always been terrible because of the aversion to frameworks. This isn’t necessarily a great hardship, and for the most part old code just works, but so many libraries fall by the wayside or just never reach their potential cos they were the singular vision of one smart person, while all the other smart people were off working on other stuff.
- Kalium 6y agoIt became a major headache for me when I saw multiple teams of developers trip over the same blind spots. Gluing together libraries works best when you're enough of a domain expert to understand every aspect. When you're writing public-facing web services and forget about security while pulling together your stack, this ignorance can become very dangerous!