5 ms·

For me this was the best talk I've seen in a long while. It reminded me of how I felt when I first read PG's essays, someone articulating your own suspicions wh

by jsmcgd 15y ago

For me this was the best talk I've seen in a long while. It reminded me of how I felt when I first read PG's essays, someone articulating your own suspicions whilst going further and deeper and bringing you to a place of enlightenment and clarity. BTW for those of you who haven't watched it, this talk is not Clojure specific.

jcromartie 15y ago
However it's a great advertisement for Clojure, since the set of things he highlights as enabling simplicity is pretty much a subset of Clojure (or included libraries, like core.logic). I'd be interested in seeing someone present a different and convincing set of concepts. At this point, I think Rich has put together a very good toolset.
- brianm 15y ago
  Well, yes, IIRC he described one of his major goals with Clojure as enabling simplicity, or something like that. That Clojure's design follows his views on simplicity seems natural. Non-Clojure examples would help make the point. He does bring up examples from Haskell (such as type classes) in the talk in places, but doesn't dive deeply into them.
  - loumf 15y ago
    SQL and Prolog were also cited, but yes, nothing very deep (which I think is fine for this talk) I would love to see the programs that are generated from this philosophy.
    - bitops 15y ago
      Your comment made me take heart if I understand it correctly. Sometimes I feel I'm the only person out there who thinks SQL has a certain beauty and elegance. I find it a little funny sometimes to hear all these "web scale" folks put down SQL, and then praise something like MongoDB because you can do map/reduce. I saw a presentation by the author of the Lift framework in Scala and he made a bit of a joke saying "gosh...all this FP stuff...the folks who created SQL heard about that a long time ago".
      - fogus 15y ago
        the only person out there who thinks SQL has a certain beauty and elegance You're not alone. :-) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730320
      - Zak 15y ago
        I think the relational model has beauty and elegance, but not the SQL language itself. They are not one and the same. On the subject of SQL and Clojure, ClojureQL provides an alternate relational data manipulation language that compiles to SQL. It's not just a different syntax; it allows some composability not found in SQL. The syntax does help though, especially in conjunction with the thrush operator.
    - Kafka 15y ago
      If I'm not mistaken he also mentions LINQ wich is a wonderful extensions of C# and the .NET Framework. It feels like LINQ and Clojure could be a interesting match.
- shoover 15y ago
  Another way to look at it is Clojure is a reification of his thoughts on simplicity.
snprbob86 15y ago
All of Rich's talks are great: http://www.infoq.com/author/Rich-Hickey http://www.infoq.com/author/Rich-Hickey
- rjn945 15y ago
  I'd like to point out in particular "Are We There Yet?" (http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hic...) If you liked this talk, then you will definitely like "Are We There Yet?" In it, Hickey argues that most popular object-oriented languages make similar mistakes by bundling identity, time and state into objects. He discusses how we might simplify programming by separating these components and rethinking each. It has a similar theme but focuses on one concrete issue in depth. It has a similar philosophical style while remaining clear-headed and practical. And, in my opinion, it is similarly enlightening. If you couldn't tell by now, I recommend it :)

by jsmcgd 15y ago

jcromartie 15y ago

However it's a great advertisement for Clojure, since the set of things he highlights as enabling simplicity is pretty much a subset of Clojure (or included libraries, like core.logic). I'd be interested in seeing someone present a different and convincing set of concepts. At this point, I think Rich has put together a very good toolset.

brianm 15y ago
Well, yes, IIRC he described one of his major goals with Clojure as enabling simplicity, or something like that. That Clojure's design follows his views on simplicity seems natural. Non-Clojure examples would help make the point. He does bring up examples from Haskell (such as type classes) in the talk in places, but doesn't dive deeply into them.
- loumf 15y ago
  SQL and Prolog were also cited, but yes, nothing very deep (which I think is fine for this talk) I would love to see the programs that are generated from this philosophy.
  - bitops 15y ago
    Your comment made me take heart if I understand it correctly. Sometimes I feel I'm the only person out there who thinks SQL has a certain beauty and elegance. I find it a little funny sometimes to hear all these "web scale" folks put down SQL, and then praise something like MongoDB because you can do map/reduce. I saw a presentation by the author of the Lift framework in Scala and he made a bit of a joke saying "gosh...all this FP stuff...the folks who created SQL heard about that a long time ago".
    - fogus 15y ago
      the only person out there who thinks SQL has a certain beauty and elegance You're not alone. :-) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730320
    - Zak 15y ago
      I think the relational model has beauty and elegance, but not the SQL language itself. They are not one and the same. On the subject of SQL and Clojure, ClojureQL provides an alternate relational data manipulation language that compiles to SQL. It's not just a different syntax; it allows some composability not found in SQL. The syntax does help though, especially in conjunction with the thrush operator.
  - Kafka 15y ago
    If I'm not mistaken he also mentions LINQ wich is a wonderful extensions of C# and the .NET Framework. It feels like LINQ and Clojure could be a interesting match.
shoover 15y ago
Another way to look at it is Clojure is a reification of his thoughts on simplicity.

snprbob86 15y ago

All of Rich's talks are great: http://www.infoq.com/author/Rich-Hickey http://www.infoq.com/author/Rich-Hickey

rjn945 15y ago
I'd like to point out in particular "Are We There Yet?" (http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hic...) If you liked this talk, then you will definitely like "Are We There Yet?" In it, Hickey argues that most popular object-oriented languages make similar mistakes by bundling identity, time and state into objects. He discusses how we might simplify programming by separating these components and rethinking each. It has a similar theme but focuses on one concrete issue in depth. It has a similar philosophical style while remaining clear-headed and practical. And, in my opinion, it is similarly enlightening. If you couldn't tell by now, I recommend it :)