181–190 of 307 posts
What happened to Clojure? Was it just a fad, or are people still using it in their day jobs? Are people still hiring Clojure devs? If you write Clojure at work, are you happy with it?
Barely hanging onto the top 50 at #49 according to the TIOBE index (Java is still #1). Make of that what you will. https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not my experience - for eg. I remember reading trough implementation of a clojure standard lib core.async (this was years ago) https://github.com/clojure/core.async/blob/master/src/main/c... It took me a long time to figure out what's going on in that code - I remember realizing how it would have been much simpler to read in a popular statically typed language like C#, types are a lot like compiler verified documenta…
That source file you're referencing is a fairly low-level library doing lots of interop with Java. That's not really what most Clojure code looks like. And furthermore: it's just a library, but this library is adding the concept of go blocks (as seen in Go) to the Clojure language. Are you even able to add a new control structure like go blocks to the C# langauge by including a library?
But your second point is pretty much the reason why I wouldn't use Clojure in a bigger environment.I had the misfortune of working C# on a project where some smartass decided it was cool to use Maybe monad in C# using LINQ (something like https://github.com/louthy/csharp-monad) First it provided no actual value as the code was harder to read, but ignoring that - most of the developers didn't get it and just used it enough to get shit working, it was a hell to debug and maintain.
core.async is public and in core - but what about when your team meber X decides to implement that - and now he sprinkles that shit all over your codebase - people keep using it because they don't want to argue. Clojure really lends it self to that kind of a thing where you do that "smart thing" to solve "that one problem" that ends up being a pointless mess that's hard to maintain and reason about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats an interesting point that doesn’t answer any of the questions the parent asked. :) Perhaps you can answer this simpler one: Netflix has been using clojure for a long time now; has that been a positive experience broadly speaking, that means clojure is still being used for new projects, or not? Having a large successful project in clojure is lovely, but much of the community’s concern around it is that its hard…
Hey, sorry I saw that and typed a quick response just as I woke up. I'm not usually at a computer so early in the day. I'll address these now that I'm in front of a machine. :) > Did they keep writing more Clojure? Yes but it has never been the primary language at Netflix. > How much more did they rewrite from Java to Clojure? Very little, if any was rewritten from Java. > If so, how much of their code is now in Cloj…
What are the reasons for this? FP language vs. OOP? Less boilerplate (again maybe due to FP)? Higher-level abstractions in the language or libraries?
I have seen that F# code (another FP language, although I've read F# is more from the ML family via OCaml, vs. Clojure being from the Lisp family) can be significantly shorter than equivalent C# code, for example, as shown in some comparisons on the fsharpforfunandprofit.com site.
Interested to know.
amazed to see there are people who find myObject.myMethod(x, y, z); easier to read than (my-function x y z) - that's 2 delimiters in Clojure vs 6 in your C-style language
To me the delimiters help with readability by breaking up the statement into its component parts in a visual way that I can immediately parse. Before even reading the variable names I understand the role of each in the statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clojure isn't nearly as bad as most would have you believe. I still prefer static strong typing, but since Clojure is strongly typed usually you'll find most of your errors within a few rounds of execution. And they have an excellent implementation gradual typing if that's your thing. If you value dynamic types, this is about as good as you can get.
For some reason I find it funny that all the comments here about static typing are written in English, a language lacking not only static typing, but a syntax that's possible to automatically check. It lets one say things like "I still static strong typing" (which you've since corrected)! One could write a comment here in Haskell describing why static typing is better, yet nobody ever does. I think even the most arde…
One strategy which i learnt from a tech company executive is that if you want to hire best of best at low cost, develop products in interesting new programming languages as the most curious programmers who are very serious about programming care less about money and more about work in a particular language of their interest. No wonder the company had successful projects in every asoteric languages. Now, I come from e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, sorry I saw that and typed a quick response just as I woke up. I'm not usually at a computer so early in the day. I'll address these now that I'm in front of a machine. :) > Did they keep writing more Clojure? Yes but it has never been the primary language at Netflix. > How much more did they rewrite from Java to Clojure? Very little, if any was rewritten from Java. > If so, how much of their code is now in Cloj…
>Clojure code bases tend to be much smaller than Java. What are the reasons for this? FP language vs. OOP? Less boilerplate (again maybe due to FP)? Higher-level abstractions in the language or libraries? I have seen that F# code (another FP language, although I've read F# is more from the ML family via OCaml, vs. Clojure being from the Lisp family) can be significantly shorter than equivalent C# code, for example, a…
You basically have maps, lists, vectors, functions and not much in terms of hierarchy. A lot of code in Object Oriented languages simply exists to manage the hierarchies and structures you build and that's something that clojure largely avoids.
There's also of course the macro capabilities of lisp that can save you a lot of boilerplate if utilized correctly.
Would be interested to hear their experiences with Clojure at Netflix for the 5 years that have followed since then. Did they keep writing more Clojure? If so, how much of their code is now in Clojure compared to Java? How much more did they rewrite from Java to Clojure? Do they use Clojure rather than Java for new code? What other languages do they use? Python? Erlang? Rust? How much, in terms of functionality, is w…
Did they keep writing more Clojure? Since Netflix likes to constantly write about their tech (videos, blog), my guess would be no, but interested in an official answer too. They are now heavy users of nodejs though. I personally ran out of reasons to prefer another dynamically-typed language over Javascript on the server (not a hard rule of course).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the Clojure language had a huge growth period around 1.1-1.5 which sparked a lot of excitement and spurred a lot of community growth. But since then, most of the exciting features have been adapted to other mainstream languages either as features or libraries, and most senior developers I know prefer to take the path of least resistance, which includes avoiding less-mainstream languages and frameworks. So instea…
What are you referring to by "instead of using ClojureScript with Om, people mostly jumped to JavaScript + React, which the Om team later praised as being the same concept they had in mind, but with a simpler and better API"? Om uses React, it didn't predate it or anything. Many of the things Om tried are more relevant to things like Redux, not React proper, so I'm not sure what your comment is referring to. And as a…
Apparently I was remembering Pedestal. See my other comment.
> Many of the things Om tried are more relevant to things like Redux
> And as a counterpoint, React just introduced the State and Effect Hooks, but those are both things that Om and reagent (the most-used Cljs React lib) have been able to do for years.
These are great evidence for my point, that Clojure has worked as a testing ground for features which more mainstream languages and frameworks then adopted.
I'd like to learn a modern production-ready functional language (I have some academic experience with SML), since they seem like a good way to grow as a programmer. Main contenders so far are Haskell, Scala and Clojure (Reason might go on the list soon too) - but the fact that Clojure is dynamically typed is a bit of a turn off for me. My experience with dynamic vs static typing is that as a system grows in size and…
> Main contenders so far are Haskell, Scala and Clojure (Reason might go on the list soon too) How about plain old OCaml? Jane Street seems to find some success with it.