Are you implying Clojure is not simple? Have you ever watched Rich Hickey's "Simple made easy" talk? If you haven't, I highly recommend it. Disclaimer: It's not about Clojure.
back
1 comments
I haven’t watched it, but I have heard about it. In contrast to the simplicity of a programming language in the happy path, I’m talking more about simplicity in the case where things break. For example, Python doesn’t implement tail call optimization in part to eliminate stack trace collapses. On the other hand, many reasons my current tool stops working is due to the underlying configuration of the JVM. Configuration management is a leading problem in distributed systems, and a fairly significant one given how it took down both Google and Facebook in two days. Clojure is a lisp on the JVM; I doubt it matters how pretty you write your code if you don’t say allocate enough memory on the heap for the process, and if it implements tail call recursion when that happens you may get an incomplete stack trace.
This is more speculation, but I do hope it gives some insights into why you may choose one paradigm for a problem over another. Overall I’d say break your problem domain into subdomains and choose the best paradigm for each.
> I doubt it matters how pretty you write your code
Clojure it's not (just about) beautiful and concise code. There's a lot more to it. And JVM in my experience is not a problem. I was skeptical at first, but as it turned out - JVM is pretty stable and solid piece of tech. Besides - there's also Clojurescript (and less popular Clojure CLR). Depending of what you are trying to solve, you can go that route too. I may not convince you to give Clojure a try, but please do yourself a favor and watch/read Rich Hickey's talks. https://changelog.com/posts/rich-hickeys-greatest-hits They are perfectly applicable and do make sense even outside of Clojure context. Many developers characterized those talks to be "eye opening".