6 ms·

I'm about a third of the way into Clojure for the Brave and True. Highly recommend for starting out from zero. You can read it for free at https://www.bravecloj

I'm about a third of the way into Clojure for the Brave and True. Highly recommend for starting out from zero. You can read it for free at https://www.braveclojure.com/clojure-for-the-brave-and-true/ https://www.braveclojure.com/clojure-for-the-brave-and-true/

olah_1 4y ago
I'm not a fan of books like that because it doesn't teach you real-world usage. You can't be thrown into a standard clojure project repo after reading that book.
- lobstrosity420 4y ago
  I mean you have to start somewhere though
  - ngcc_hk 4y ago
    Totally agreed. Strangely Common Lisp is easier to start than clojure. Only once I can handle the system build up. Quickload, quick project etc. not clojure so far.
    - lobstrosity420 4y ago
      For me at least installing Leiningen was pretty straightforward. Just download the executable and it sets itself up. Setting up SBCL and Quicklisp was harder but not by a lot. What problems did you encounter setting up Clojure?
- capableweb 4y ago
  I used this book (+ others obviously) and I think it was the best one around so far, for me at least. It does contain exercises for you to solve specific problems, which is helpful, but otherwise 4clojure comes closest I guess. By the way, what languages have books that makes you go from knowing zero to being able to jump into a standard X-language project repository after reading through the book? Usually it goes from "knowing nothing" -> "knowing a bit, solving small problems" -> "solving bigger problems, maybe contribute to small projects" -> "being able to contribute substantially" -> "being able to own a project and lead it", and I know of no (single) books that takes you across multiple steps. Usually books focuses on one of the steps.
  - olah_1 4y ago
    > By the way, what languages have books that makes you go from knowing zero to being able to jump into a standard X-language project repository after reading through the book? Here is one example https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/ https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/
- Semiapies 4y ago
  Well, what's a good starting book you recommend that gets you to there?
  - olah_1 4y ago
    For Clojure specifically, there isn't one. But one that should be emulated in all languages is this: https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/ https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/
    - Semiapies 4y ago
      Fair enough.
kaba0 4y ago
I did try to enter Clojure’s world multiple times (and succeeded to a degree), but I couldn’t put aside the ill-feeling while reading several well-regarded books on the language. It had such a narcissistic writing, looking down on every other language that I didn’t see in any other community. Maybe it is a lisp thing? Nonetheless, fortunately it wasn’t enough to make me stop, because Clojure is indeed a fantastic language with a great community, but a bit less tribalism could benefit its writers.
- krn 4y ago
  > It had such a narcissistic writing, looking down on every other language that I didn’t see in any other community. Maybe it is a lisp thing? Yes, it's a Lisp thing, but not without a reason. Paul Graham explained this in "Beating the Averages"[1] more than two decades ago: > Programmers get very attached to their favorite languages, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so to explain this point I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language. > And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Blub feature of your choice). > As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub. > When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Blub. How can you get anything done in Blub? It doesn't even have y. > By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Eric Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs. > I know this from my own experience, as a high school kid writing programs in Basic. That language didn't even support recursion. It's hard to imagine writing programs without using recursion, but I didn't miss it at the time. I thought in Basic. And I was a whiz at it. Master of all I surveyed. [1] https://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html https://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

olah_1 4y ago

I'm not a fan of books like that because it doesn't teach you real-world usage. You can't be thrown into a standard clojure project repo after reading that book.

lobstrosity420 4y ago
I mean you have to start somewhere though
- ngcc_hk 4y ago
  Totally agreed. Strangely Common Lisp is easier to start than clojure. Only once I can handle the system build up. Quickload, quick project etc. not clojure so far.
  - lobstrosity420 4y ago
    For me at least installing Leiningen was pretty straightforward. Just download the executable and it sets itself up. Setting up SBCL and Quicklisp was harder but not by a lot. What problems did you encounter setting up Clojure?
capableweb 4y ago
I used this book (+ others obviously) and I think it was the best one around so far, for me at least. It does contain exercises for you to solve specific problems, which is helpful, but otherwise 4clojure comes closest I guess. By the way, what languages have books that makes you go from knowing zero to being able to jump into a standard X-language project repository after reading through the book? Usually it goes from "knowing nothing" -> "knowing a bit, solving small problems" -> "solving bigger problems, maybe contribute to small projects" -> "being able to contribute substantially" -> "being able to own a project and lead it", and I know of no (single) books that takes you across multiple steps. Usually books focuses on one of the steps.
- olah_1 4y ago
  > By the way, what languages have books that makes you go from knowing zero to being able to jump into a standard X-language project repository after reading through the book? Here is one example https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/ https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/
Semiapies 4y ago
Well, what's a good starting book you recommend that gets you to there?
- olah_1 4y ago
  For Clojure specifically, there isn't one. But one that should be emulated in all languages is this: https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/ https://quii.gitbook.io/learn-go-with-tests/
  - Semiapies 4y ago
    Fair enough.

kaba0 4y ago

I did try to enter Clojure’s world multiple times (and succeeded to a degree), but I couldn’t put aside the ill-feeling while reading several well-regarded books on the language. It had such a narcissistic writing, looking down on every other language that I didn’t see in any other community. Maybe it is a lisp thing? Nonetheless, fortunately it wasn’t enough to make me stop, because Clojure is indeed a fantastic language with a great community, but a bit less tribalism could benefit its writers.

krn 4y ago
> It had such a narcissistic writing, looking down on every other language that I didn’t see in any other community. Maybe it is a lisp thing? Yes, it's a Lisp thing, but not without a reason. Paul Graham explained this in "Beating the Averages"[1] more than two decades ago: > Programmers get very attached to their favorite languages, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so to explain this point I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language. > And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Blub feature of your choice). > As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub. > When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Blub. How can you get anything done in Blub? It doesn't even have y. > By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Eric Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs. > I know this from my own experience, as a high school kid writing programs in Basic. That language didn't even support recursion. It's hard to imagine writing programs without using recursion, but I didn't miss it at the time. I thought in Basic. And I was a whiz at it. Master of all I surveyed. [1] https://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html https://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html