11–20 of 254 posts
I learned to code in Python. Loved it. Dynamically typed dicts up the wazoo!
Then I learned why I prefer actual types. Because then when I read code, I don't have to read the code that populates the dicts to understand what fields exist.
> An incoming HTTP request? it is a plain Clojure dictionary. I learned to code in Python. Loved it. Dynamically typed dicts up the wazoo! Then I learned why I prefer actual types. Because then when I read code, I don't have to read the code that populates the dicts to understand what fields exist.
The advantage is that maps are extensible. So, you can have middleware that e.g. checks authentication and authorization, adds keys to the map, that later code can check it directly. Namespacing guarantees nobody stomps on anyone else's feet. Spec/malli and friends tell you what to expect at those keys. You can sort of do the same thing in some other programming languages, but generally you're missing one of 1) typechecking 2) namespacing 3) convenience.
[0]: spec-ulation keynote from a few years ago does a good job explaining the tradeoffs; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk
> An incoming HTTP request? it is a plain Clojure dictionary. I learned to code in Python. Loved it. Dynamically typed dicts up the wazoo! Then I learned why I prefer actual types. Because then when I read code, I don't have to read the code that populates the dicts to understand what fields exist.
One thing I don't like about all articles on clojure is that basically all of them say: ah, it's just like lisp with lists `(an (example of) (a list))` with vectors `[1 2 3]` thrown in. So easy! But then you get to Clojure proper, and you run into additional syntax that either convention or functions/macros that look like additional syntax. Ok, granted, -> and ->> are easy to reason about (though they look like addit…
> An incoming HTTP request? it is a plain Clojure dictionary. I learned to code in Python. Loved it. Dynamically typed dicts up the wazoo! Then I learned why I prefer actual types. Because then when I read code, I don't have to read the code that populates the dicts to understand what fields exist.
Granted, you may have a framework do a fair bit of that. Depends how much you want between receipt of the request and code you directly control.
One thing I don't like about all articles on clojure is that basically all of them say: ah, it's just like lisp with lists `(an (example of) (a list))` with vectors `[1 2 3]` thrown in. So easy! But then you get to Clojure proper, and you run into additional syntax that either convention or functions/macros that look like additional syntax. Ok, granted, -> and ->> are easy to reason about (though they look like addit…
Single engineers will pick clojure at companies , build a project in it, later that engineer will move on, now nobody can maintain this code so it’s rewritten in some normal language. I’ve seen that happen a few times. That code is hard to read and understand. This is why clojure will remain niche.
Usually this is made worse by bespoke build tools and optimizations that make the system punishing to pick up.
You should try deeper profiling tools like JFR+JMC (http://jdk.java.net/jmc/8/) and MAT (https://www.eclipse.org/mat/).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how you’re supposed to find this page, but it’s pretty useful: https://clojure.org/guides/weird_characters
Nice! I missed it (or it didn't exist) when I last looked at Clojure a few years back
The Guide/Reference split obscures a lot of information (do I want guidance on Deps & CLI or do I want reference on Deps & CLI?) and the guides where that gem is hidden randomly mix advanced topics (eg, how to set up generative testing), beginner topics (how to read Clojure code) and library author topics (eg, Reader Conditionals).
When you think about it, there is nearly no trigger to look at the guides when the information you need is there. Clojure is a weird mix of both well documented and terribly documented. All the facts are on the website, very few of them are accessible when required. The people who make it past that gauntlet are rewarded by getting to use Clojure.
If I find myself having to repeat myself justifying a certain decision time and time again, it's an indicator that the decision needs to be revised to be something which is a more intuitive fit for the organization.
> An incoming HTTP request? it is a plain Clojure dictionary. I learned to code in Python. Loved it. Dynamically typed dicts up the wazoo! Then I learned why I prefer actual types. Because then when I read code, I don't have to read the code that populates the dicts to understand what fields exist.