So, "Clojure is for slobs?" Because that's what it sounds like the article is saying...
I didn't see it that way. More spontaneous and un-predictable is what I got.
Laziness, sloppy code conventions, cheap beer, gas station pastries...
Clojure is for Type B personalities
31–40 of 44 posts
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#32This is basically reinventing Steve Yegge's analysis in [1] of programmers into "conservative" (risk-averse, prioritize safety) and "liberal" (accepting of risk, prioritize expressivity), except less polarizing (because it doesn't involve political comparisons) and less thorough. Oakes also calls for reconciliation, while Yegge tips his hand as a hardcore "liberal". [1]: https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/…
Both, to me, sound like reinventions of ESR's "the cathedral and the bazaar". I like those definitions and the things they imply: bazaar-style work is simple, easy, and fast, it doesn't require much capital, but it doesn't scale past a certain size -- and it's not going to produce an architecture that can withstand firebombing 700 years after ground was broken for it. I think most people can say pretty accurately whe…
Cathedral and Bazaar are about different ways of organizing projects; Liberal/conservative or Type B/Type A are about individual programmer preferences. So they're not the same thing, although there's some amount of sympathy between them - one might expect liberal/type-B personalities to be attracted to bazaar work and conservative/type-A personalities to prefer cathedral work. But I don't know to what extent this is true, or testable.
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#33But the error message though...
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#34I have to say, I was trying to learn Clojure (instead of Common Lisp) and actually fell in love with Haskell when a friend explained that I don't have to write the type signatures - almost at all. Indeed; previously, I was rigorously doing type signatures on all functions in Haskell, and found it very annoying. The only downside of that was it made sometimes harder to figure out the error. When you get run time type…
Type inference is cool for write fast but defeat the point of have a type system (IMHO).
I'm using F#, and without a IDE that tell me what kind of crazy type is the code I'm looking right know I can't function.
I have used delphi (love it!) and write the types is so minimal, and the benefit of clarity are great. I use a lot of python, I'm used to be unsecure about what exactly the types are. I use F#, and I'm even more unsecure about it. Is kind of infurating that the compiler know what the types are, but all of that is hidden to me!
P.D: Type-inference is the thing I like less from F#. All the rest is great to me (Pattern matching, AGDT, etc).
I wish the editor show me the types in read mode but I can write without type all in write mode. So, I write "a + b" and then when move out the line, the editor show "a:int + b:int" or something like that. That could truly be the best thing about the 2 worlds.
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#35This is basically reinventing Steve Yegge's analysis in [1] of programmers into "conservative" (risk-averse, prioritize safety) and "liberal" (accepting of risk, prioritize expressivity), except less polarizing (because it doesn't involve political comparisons) and less thorough. Oakes also calls for reconciliation, while Yegge tips his hand as a hardcore "liberal". [1]: https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/…
It's interesting that Yegge places Clojure into the 'conservative' camp whereas the author of this post places it into his equivalent of the 'liberal' camp. Personally, I think that says more about Yegge than the author of this piece, but I suspect that it might also say that the distinctions that each is making might be subtly different.
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#36Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#37This is basically reinventing Steve Yegge's analysis in [1] of programmers into "conservative" (risk-averse, prioritize safety) and "liberal" (accepting of risk, prioritize expressivity), except less polarizing (because it doesn't involve political comparisons) and less thorough. Oakes also calls for reconciliation, while Yegge tips his hand as a hardcore "liberal". [1]: https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/…
It's interesting that Yegge places Clojure into the 'conservative' camp whereas the author of this post places it into his equivalent of the 'liberal' camp. Personally, I think that says more about Yegge than the author of this piece, but I suspect that it might also say that the distinctions that each is making might be subtly different.
I think it simply reflects that the distinctions each is making are, to a great degree, subjective and up for debate. See, for example, http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/08/is-haskell-liberal-or-conserv..., which argues that Haskell of all languages is, in a sense, liberal.
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#38I dont agree with this at all
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#39I am a type B person (if this designation even makes sense), and have a diagnosed ADD. However, I prefer statically typed languages like Scala, as it is easier for me to compensate for lack of internal discipline with external constraints.
I am also type B and prefer statically typed languages and the compiler telling me as much as possible what's wrong with my code. I really hate finiding errors at runtime that should have easily been detected by my compiler.
Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities
#40[deleted]