Why I ever wrote Clojure
thesoftwarephilosopher.com
Why I ever wrote Clojure
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#2I notice too that a noticeable number of people pick up Clojure because it's new and shiny. As a longtime Clojurian I find that attitude can be disappointing to run into, like when you realize a growing friendship will die because they're not serious about living in your city.
I don't claim to know the man but the reasons Rich wanted Clojure are quite concrete, well documented, and rational. Java programs of the time were a particularly heinous form of OOP; we should not be surprised that a clever programmer would grow a preference for a dynamic, functional-first style. He found lisp superior (in interactivity, expressiveness, yadda yadda) and wanted to use it professionally.
To work in lisp required delivering something indistinguishable from a JAR (or other mainstream proglang executable). He had the realization that without immutable data structures baked into the language he'd always be subject to Other People's State.
If you think about these points logically they lead pretty straightforwardly to creating a (pragmatically) functional, dynamic, hosted lisp.
Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#3Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#4Well he spelled out the motivations in numerous early presentations so I don't think he'd take kindly to the implication they were BS.
I remember a funny quote along the lines of, he felt the concurrent software he'd already written in C++ and Java had required "He-Man" levels of perspiration to actually get correct.
Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#5Fintech benefits from concurrency, immutability and all, so obviously there is much more nuance to "why fintech uses Clojure".
Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#6Rich has written about the history and motivation behind Clojure here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3386321
Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#7Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#8Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#9Re: Why I ever wrote Clojure
#10But why speculate on Rich's motivations? He has spoken extensively on the subject. (Hint: It's not because he was bored.)