3 ms·
Yeah, I read the clojure book back in like 2009 and used it a little. I thought it had a lot of neat ideas but when it comes to just getting a job done, if it'
by jbooth 13y ago
Yeah, I read the clojure book back in like 2009 and used it a little. I thought it had a lot of neat ideas but when it comes to just getting a job done, if it's not a problem where pure functional programming brings a lot of value (things that really benefit from code-as-data), I'd rather just write boring old procedural code. Easier to read, easier to reason about.
- cgag 13y agoI strongly disagree with procedural code being easier to read and particularly easier to reason about. I haven't run into many (any) problems in the last few years that I thought functional programming didn't bring a lot of value. The code-as-data is kind of an orthogonal issue, most functional languages aren't homoiconic. Edit: also Clojure isn't pure.
- jbooth 13y agoThat's fine, you're just in a tiny minority. Code-as-data is actually a win that you can't get from procedural languages, which is why I brought it up. It makes solutions to complex configuration spaces possible that aren't even conceivable in procedural languages. Everything else is just syntax.