4 ms·

Informative talk and I really like the vision he presents in the beginning of it. I started with Clojure from python and while a lot of good things are present

by emil0r 13y ago

Informative talk and I really like the vision he presents in the beginning of it. I started with Clojure from python and while a lot of good things are present in python, I really miss the whole notion of "let's step back a bit and ponder whether we are on the right track or not" that is present in the Clojure community. Especially the core team. If I could just get half of what's in Clojure trickle into the mainstream languages I'd be a happy bunny.

michaelochurch 13y ago
What makes me happy about Clojure is that it has the potential to become mainstream, at least among the top 10%. I know a couple of people who've secretly used Clojure at their Java jobs. I don't know what will happen to them when they go through code review, but it's pretty cool that they can do that.
praptak 13y ago
the whole notion of"let's step back a bit and ponder" - it has an official name: Hammock Driven Development. Presentation about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc As to trickling from Clojure to the mainstream - I wonder how far this could go without the foundation work that went into creating Clojure as it is. You definitely need a clutter-free syntax for functions as data, otherwise "(alter ref inc)" becomes "alter(ref, lambda x: inc(x))". Bad. Macros help too but I don't want this to turn into a "turn all languages into Lisps" rant :)
- pwr 13y ago
  Your example turns into "alter(ref, inc)" in any programming language with first class functions. I think there are some great concepts in Clojure (multimethods e.g.) which are not tied to lispy syntax and macros.
jwr 13y ago
> If I could just get half of what's in Clojure trickle into the mainstream languages I'd be a happy bunny Why aren't you a happy bunny with Clojure? I have two observations to contribute: * I noticed that my clients stopped caring about languages a long time ago. It is now known that there are many languages and more than one "right" choice. If asked about technology, saying you write software in Clojure, which runs on the JVM and uses Java libraries is accepted as a perfectly valid answer. * Certain concepts have a fundamental complexity and cannot be simplified any further. Clojure got a lot of things right. Trying to "trickle down into mainstream languages" sounds like a hopeless task: you will end up either dumbing things down or making them difficult to use because other supporting parts of the language aren't there.
- emil0r 13y ago
  I am very happy with Clojure :). But every time I have tried to introduce it into a workplace it has been the effect of the alien spacecraft. Too alien, too little to hold onto for the average working programmer (by this, I don't mean they are average, it's only the experience I'm talking about). For your second point I completely agree. But shouldn't say, multimethods be doable in most other languages? In some, who are very strongly leaning towards OO, it probably wouldn't make that much sense. But others who can be written in a functional style could certainly benefit from it.

by emil0r 13y ago

michaelochurch 13y ago

What makes me happy about Clojure is that it has the potential to become mainstream, at least among the top 10%. I know a couple of people who've secretly used Clojure at their Java jobs. I don't know what will happen to them when they go through code review, but it's pretty cool that they can do that.

praptak 13y ago

the whole notion of"let's step back a bit and ponder" - it has an official name: Hammock Driven Development. Presentation about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc As to trickling from Clojure to the mainstream - I wonder how far this could go without the foundation work that went into creating Clojure as it is. You definitely need a clutter-free syntax for functions as data, otherwise "(alter ref inc)" becomes "alter(ref, lambda x: inc(x))". Bad. Macros help too but I don't want this to turn into a "turn all languages into Lisps" rant :)

pwr 13y ago
Your example turns into "alter(ref, inc)" in any programming language with first class functions. I think there are some great concepts in Clojure (multimethods e.g.) which are not tied to lispy syntax and macros.

jwr 13y ago

> If I could just get half of what's in Clojure trickle into the mainstream languages I'd be a happy bunny Why aren't you a happy bunny with Clojure? I have two observations to contribute: * I noticed that my clients stopped caring about languages a long time ago. It is now known that there are many languages and more than one "right" choice. If asked about technology, saying you write software in Clojure, which runs on the JVM and uses Java libraries is accepted as a perfectly valid answer. * Certain concepts have a fundamental complexity and cannot be simplified any further. Clojure got a lot of things right. Trying to "trickle down into mainstream languages" sounds like a hopeless task: you will end up either dumbing things down or making them difficult to use because other supporting parts of the language aren't there.

emil0r 13y ago
I am very happy with Clojure :). But every time I have tried to introduce it into a workplace it has been the effect of the alien spacecraft. Too alien, too little to hold onto for the average working programmer (by this, I don't mean they are average, it's only the experience I'm talking about). For your second point I completely agree. But shouldn't say, multimethods be doable in most other languages? In some, who are very strongly leaning towards OO, it probably wouldn't make that much sense. But others who can be written in a functional style could certainly benefit from it.