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

Clojure 1.11 is now available

clojure.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#61

Post by kimi »

jdminhbg wrote: post #41
phtrivier wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- ease the onboarding. Every few months I try to give clojure another shot, and every few months _some_ part of the setup has changed and / or is broken. - compile to small binaries that run fast. I get what the langage gets from the JVM, but those 5,10 seconds I get before _anything_ runs, even after I had everything compiled ? - show me an example of how having 'spec' is going to help me refactor the code that I go…

> show me an example of how having 'spec' is going to help me refactor the code that I got wrong the first time, as easily as what a proto-ML-like static type checker does. It's not a question of "types are bad vs types are good thing". It's a question of "this property was called 'name', but now I need it to be 'names', and I really need to know every possible place of my code base that uses it so that I can recursi…

Refactoring is still hard and awfully manual. And like all dynamic languages, a wrong key (was it :user or :users or :username or :user_name?) will be a PITA to find.

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#62

Post by hiepph »

fuzzythinker wrote: post #48

If you have been filtering out clojure due to dislike of JVM, give it a try with GraalVM either directly [1] or via Babashka [2]. GraalVM will in most cases not only run your code much faster than JVM, but cuts startup time from seconds down to msecs [3][4], not to mention compiling to native with c api or LLVM. With Babashka, it packages a subset of GraalVM so you don't have to install that but is more limited. So i…

I owe a lot to Babashka. Now I can use Clojure for real-job scripting instead of just playing for fun with it.

For a one-liner scripting I still use Bash but for a larger script I now use Clojure.

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#63

Post by bjoli »

Decabytes wrote: post #2

Glad to see Clojure continuing to improve. Racket borrows a lot from Clojure^1,2,3 so its success fuels ours as well. With the other post on here about Java 18 including Pattern Matching, I'm glad that good ideas continue to cross pollinate between different languages. Programming is still a young field compared to other professions, and there is still a lot of good things left to discover! 1. https://docs.racket-lan…

Those are third party packages, of which only the threading package is popular.

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#64

Post by epolanski »

Every person I know that has developed in Clojure has high praise for it.

How does it compares to the likes of other statically typed Lisp dialects such as Rackett?

I've always wanted to read "Clojure for the brave and true" but there's just enough lisp books (my favorite being "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs") I can read without actually wanting to use the language.

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#65

Post by keeeeeeeem »

armitron wrote: post #53
buzzwords wrote: post #8

I do wonder what has to happen for greater adoption of Clojure.

It needs to run natively and not on the JVM. Performance is bad compared to Rust and even Go. Erlang is better when it comes to parallelism.

Seems like a weird nitpick, given that Clojure is a parasitic language by design. In addition to the JVM it also runs on GraalVM, Node, BEAM and .NET.

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#66

Post by masijo »

I use Clojure every day at work and it's my favorite dynamic functional language. That said, I think in large projects like the one I'm working in, a statically typed language would've been better. I know Clojure has spec and other similar libraries but it's just not a replacement for static typing.

I love Clojure and would use it for small projects if given the chance but I think there are diminishing returns when you scale up, specially if you deal with a complex data structures which get encoded and decoded to JSON (messes up things like keywords).

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#67

Post by Decabytes »

bjoli wrote: post #63
Decabytes wrote: post #2

Glad to see Clojure continuing to improve. Racket borrows a lot from Clojure^1,2,3 so its success fuels ours as well. With the other post on here about Java 18 including Pattern Matching, I'm glad that good ideas continue to cross pollinate between different languages. Programming is still a young field compared to other professions, and there is still a lot of good things left to discover! 1. https://docs.racket-lan…

Those are third party packages, of which only the threading package is popular.

Yes but people are still interested in it. For example in the Rhombus Proposal (Formerly Racket2) there is a section on generic collections, with a link to a blog post comparing Racket and Clojure from 2010.

1. https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype/blob/master/reso...

2. http://programming-puzzler.blogspot.com/2010/08/racket-vs-cl...

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#69

Post by [deleted] »

KingMob wrote: post #57
robertfw wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - ease the onboarding. Every few months I try to give clojure another shot, and every few months _some_ part of the setup has changed and / or is broken. What are you finding that is breaking? Backwards compatibility is pretty stellar in the language

Probably referring to the docs. I myself am irritated at the pace of change of all the clj command-line options. In general, Clojure still has poor documentation compared to more popular languages.

[deleted]

Re: Clojure 1.11 is now available

#70

Post by gmfawcett »

haolez wrote: post #51
gmfawcett wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (, [ and { mean the same thing... That's not a feature of Scheme. It must be a feature of the implementation you use. (Which one?) E.g. in R7RS, [ ] and { } are explicitly reserved for future language extensions. https://standards.scheme.org/official/r7rs.pdf

My last Lisp project was using Racket, but when it was called PLT Scheme. It's been a long time since then :)

It seems like only yesterday... but you're right, we are old. :)

I was never a big PLT user -- Chicken Scheme for life! -- but they have always been about pushing language boundaries, I'm not surprised to hear that they supported an extended syntax.

Post reply on HN