3 ms·
Cute, but i'll counter with this one: > Any sufficiently complicated Clojure program contains an ad hoc, > informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementatio
by synthc 4y ago
Cute, but i'll counter with this one:
> Any sufficiently complicated Clojure program contains an ad hoc,
> informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Spring.
- xapata 4y agoIncluding Spring itself? Jokes aside, can't Clojure simply call whatever you want from the JVM?
- dekelpilli 4y agoMaybe theoretically true (I'm not sure about the extent of the completeness), but definitely not practically true when it comes to annotation-driven-development frameworks such as Spring.
- xapata 4y agoAh. While objects have their uses, I think the Clojurist might prefer, well, closures. That's not to say one is better than the other, just that the Clojurist probably won't miss the style of the Spring framework.
- bcrosby95 4y agoAh, Spring - freeing Java developers from the horror of typing "new" since 2002.
- mypalmike 4y agoIf you did a Spring tutorial, I can see that this might be the takeaway. For me, I was thrown at a large project with a couple of large Spring codebases, I concluded that it's about structuring your code around an object graph with independent, testable, loosely coupled components.
- bcrosby95 4y agoI use both Spring and Java professionally. For a pretty long time now. I was being somewhat sarcastic. I mostly use Spring because it's pretty widespread and I figure - why fight the current. But I still think the benefit is minor for most projects. And the existence of Spring Boot makes me chuckle a bit.
- mypalmike 4y agoI get you. I think it encourages a certain application structure that is at least recognizable across projects. There's a pretty big benefit to that, even if at the detail level it's just a way to avoid new.