Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

simongray.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 306 posts

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#101

Post by [deleted] »

abrax3141 wrote: post #81
lispm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clojure did not just rename a few functions. It's basically zero source code compatible with Lisps. Not only old example code does not run, nothing runs. No applications, no libraries, no tools, ... It's not even easy to port. It's a rewrite and/or redesign. Obviously this is okay for people who don't care of the historical baggage (and want to avoid it) and who don't care about the functionality of Lisps, like inter…

Right. The reason Common Lisp is called “common” is that it has a standard that allows anyone to build a lisp from scratch that will run any common lisp code essentially completely unchanged (obviously you need to adjust a bit where you hit the OS, but even the file access methods are spec’ed). If you aren’t conformant you aren’t a Common Lisp - you could still be a lisp. Clojure is a lisp, just not a Common Lisp.

[deleted]

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#102

Post by Stratoscope »

pron wrote: post #62
7thaccount wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with transpile. Yes compiler covers all sorts of things (code -> assembly or code -> different language code...etc). However when I hear "transpile" I immediately think of a language going to another language like when Nim gets converted to C or JavaScript or when Clojure gets converted to Java first. It is a specific form of compilation right?

It is a rather ill-defined form of compilation; i.e., it's not clear what that form is. Compilation means translation from one language to another; every compiler does that. Transpile was born because people were used to the fact that the target language of many compilers is machine code, but it's entirely unnecessary to have a separate word for that, as it doesn't add any information. There could be a meaningful ter…

Here's a recent comment of mine making a similar point with a couple of citations:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22441298

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#103

Post by grimgrin »

peferron wrote: post #99
tensor wrote: post #26

Startup time isn't what is holding the language back. In my opinion it's: 1. Tooling. You end up spending way more time getting your tooling setup than it should be. 2. Difficulty in learning. 3. Clear best practices and frameworks. The philosophy of composing libraries is extremely powerful, but to gain broader adoption you still need straight forward frameworks and opinionated best practices. The last point has man…

Clojure would not gain widespread adoption even if all your points were fixed. The sad reality is that 99% of developers out there are instantly turned off by the parens and absence of while loops.

While you're here:

https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/while

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#104

Post by modarts »

peferron wrote: post #100
hota_mazi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are omitting the main reason why Clojure never succeeded: it's dynamically typed at the core. It's on the wrong side of history in that respect. I know it's trying very hard to catch up to statically typed languages now by retrofitting some type system, but it's too little, too late. Static types are where the current state of the art is, and we're not going back. Clojure missed that train and will never…

Python and JS succeeded long before they had a static type system. Many people still use Python and JS today without type annotations. Elixir is not statically typed either and seems to be doing fine. I like static typing and agree that it will eventually "win", but I really don't see where you're coming from here. > I know it's trying very hard to catch up to statically typed languages now by retrofitting some type…

spec

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#105

Post by escherize »

peferron wrote: post #99
tensor wrote: post #26

Startup time isn't what is holding the language back. In my opinion it's: 1. Tooling. You end up spending way more time getting your tooling setup than it should be. 2. Difficulty in learning. 3. Clear best practices and frameworks. The philosophy of composing libraries is extremely powerful, but to gain broader adoption you still need straight forward frameworks and opinionated best practices. The last point has man…

Clojure would not gain widespread adoption even if all your points were fixed. The sad reality is that 99% of developers out there are instantly turned off by the parens and absence of while loops.

Clojure has while loops, but I think I see where you're coming from: It is a significantly different approach to programming, and if an engineer is not willing to re-jigger their style Clojure is not going to be a good fit for them.

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#106

Post by peferron »

grimgrin wrote: post #103
peferron wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clojure would not gain widespread adoption even if all your points were fixed. The sad reality is that 99% of developers out there are instantly turned off by the parens and absence of while loops.

While you're here: https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/while

Ha, I did run into that one. Take my upvote! Clojure's while is very rarely used so hopefully my point still stands, especially when languages like Go have been wildly successful going in the exact opposite direction.

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#107

Post by 7thaccount »

pron wrote: post #62
7thaccount wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with transpile. Yes compiler covers all sorts of things (code -> assembly or code -> different language code...etc). However when I hear "transpile" I immediately think of a language going to another language like when Nim gets converted to C or JavaScript or when Clojure gets converted to Java first. It is a specific form of compilation right?

It is a rather ill-defined form of compilation; i.e., it's not clear what that form is. Compilation means translation from one language to another; every compiler does that. Transpile was born because people were used to the fact that the target language of many compilers is machine code, but it's entirely unnecessary to have a separate word for that, as it doesn't add any information. There could be a meaningful ter…

I think this is just the way human language generally works being that it is organic and messy. In my field, there are numerous overlapping and even contradictory terms.

I like the added distinction "transpiler" provides as I immediately know what the author means. Or the author could just use the term "compiler" plus another sentence to describe which kind. Transpiler seems like the more efficient way to convey the concept.

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#109

Post by slowmovintarget »

hota_mazi wrote: post #98
tensor wrote: post #26

Startup time isn't what is holding the language back. In my opinion it's: 1. Tooling. You end up spending way more time getting your tooling setup than it should be. 2. Difficulty in learning. 3. Clear best practices and frameworks. The philosophy of composing libraries is extremely powerful, but to gain broader adoption you still need straight forward frameworks and opinionated best practices. The last point has man…

I think you are omitting the main reason why Clojure never succeeded: it's dynamically typed at the core. It's on the wrong side of history in that respect. I know it's trying very hard to catch up to statically typed languages now by retrofitting some type system, but it's too little, too late. Static types are where the current state of the art is, and we're not going back. Clojure missed that train and will never…

Static types are the new religion, like OOP was in the 90s.

Types solve 2% of programming errors. They lead to coupling for the sake of the compiler, and make code harder to change, harder to write, and often needlessly constrain the utility of the code where they're applied.

But they do make the IDE code-completion go, so there's that.

Re: Clojure: A Lisp that wants to spread

#110

Post by invalidOrTaken »

kamaal wrote: post #96
vemv wrote: post #57

My personal perspective (after 8 years clojuring, half of that professionally) is that Clojure keeps progressing, with ever better tools and ideas for getting stuff done, optimally. I remain optimistic. At the same time, it still fails at my "golden test": can I gather 5 random freelance engineers and get them to ship a project within a few months, wasting almost no billable time? I can (and have) with Ruby, Typescri…

I think it's a problem loop. No one wants to use Clojure because it's hard to impossible finding Clojure Devs. Also no one wants to learn it for the same reasons. The demand is less to non-existent to a point any time spent learning Clojure is unlikely to give any substantial returns.

If anyone reading this is in this situation: hi! I've been working in Clojure(&script) for eight years, and I'm looking for full-time work. Email is in my profile.
Post reply on HN