Same here. My first thought was: another post about someone who tried Clojure and at some point realized it was not apt for their project so now decided to criticize it in an article.
Pretty sure that this isn't the post's purpose but it makes me want to never touch Clojure. I'm obviously not used to it however I can't help but think that it takes serious mental gymnastics to consider the "optimized" code the author came up with as even remotely good, from readability / comprehensibility / extensibility perspective.
Yes, to me the title suggested the article was about the immaturity of Clojure Code (as in not ready for prime time) and it was only upon reading it that I realized it was about the immaturity of the OP's Clojure code as he began his Clojure journey.
It was a nice read. I liked the frankness - no claims to overnight Ninjitsu mastery - and yet I get the feeling it's all pretty solid.
OP here. I didn't realize that Clojure was a trigger word! I just included that bit at the beginning to give a little context on how I got into this topic, not to hype anything.
Then it is actually far worse than what I guessed. You know next to nothing about Clojure, but somehow feel that you are qualified to have an opinion about it. That doesn't look good, does it?
I recently gave a talk at work to show why Clojure is a good fit and show some of the possibilities and its ecosystem.
People got interested and wanted to try stuff but were overwhelmed with what to choose (lein, deps, boot) which editor to use, what's a REPL, why should I use one, how to use it (from the IDE) and some other stuff like where to learn Clojure.
So I decided to write an introduction regarding all that (covering IntelliJ & VSCode since it's the tooling people use at work). Don't hesitate to give feedback as this surely can be improved.
Note: it doesn't cover ClojureScript but I would be glad to cover it in the same manner in another post.
I seriously think Clojure is too much to take in at the first introduction. It's really hard to get your brain around everything done right, when compared to traditional programming. You need to use it for a while to really get why it's approach to state (not concurrency) is awesome.
This experience is extremely common. I have lost track of the number of people who have formed a negative opinion of Clojure because they were forced to pick up the pieces of a half-baked project written by someone who wasn't familiar with Clojure or its idioms.
It should go without saying that this should not actually reflect poorly on Clojure as a language.
Of course, my brain read the word in the headline as "Clojure", and so I was expecting "Honesty" to be the name of a new Lisp dialect. I think I need to get out more...
The original title is more of a clickbait. The article highlights good things about Clojure but it doesn't tell anything about the languages mentioned in the title.
I've read the original article and, to be quite honest, couldn't actually determine what point it was trying to make. The action items seemed to have very little to do with the rest of the rant.
I actually read the response first and the weird thing is: I couldn't really tell you what exactly the response is replying to. I feel like the whole thing is a huge amount of verbiage expressing frustration and broken motives but any actual solid facts mentioned are peripheral at best to what's being said.
I could write multiple pages on how I fell out of love with Clojure but I doubt it would benefit anyone and it'd be a huge pain to do.
Clojure is the product of a singular aesthetic, for better or worse.
reply