It's a particularly good entry point because unlike full-JVM Clojure it has a very fast startup time. Newcomers can use any file-watching /reloading tools (e.g. nodemon) that they're already familiar with to work with it interactively.
Hopefully, a enthusiastic user will graduate to using a REPL connection in their editor for a fully interactive setup. But newcomers tend not to do this... its an unfamiliar workflow to most, and can be pretty cumbersome to setup.
[0]: https://babashka.org
shadow-cljs[2] makes using npm libraries easy.
i’ve settled on go backends and reagent frontends as my default setup[3].
1. https://reagent-project.github.io/
[0]: https://www.braveclojure.com/clojure-for-the-brave-and-true
Try Clojure – An interactive tutorial in the browser - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30423856 - Feb 2022 (93 comments)
Try Clojure in your browser - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3366526 - Dec 2011 (26 comments)
Try Clojure - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1359682 - May 2010 (60 comments)
Instead, this fact always seems glossed over, and because of it anyone who spends 60 seconds writing lisp by hand into a repl assumes that's the lisp experience and nopes out forever. When in fact paredit makes lisps the easiest-to-edit languages in the world.
(my-name "<img src='#' onerror=alert(1) />")
map, filter and reduce are extraordinarily powerful, especially when combined with the other core library functions.
Is functional programming too weird for majority of computer programmers? Is functional programming not optimal for solving industry problems? Maybe there is no functional programming that that is up to some set of standards? Is functional programming too complicated?
I do enjoy functional programming myself, and while I don't use a functional programming language at work, I try to use functional programming paradigms when I finds it suits the probem.
(let ((a 1)
((b c) (list 2 3))
(d e (values 4 5)))
`#(,a ,b ,c ,d ,e))
;; => #(1 2 3 4 5)=> (+ 2 2 + 3)
"4function Cg(a){switch(arguments.length){case 0:return Cg.s();case 1:return Cg.g(arguments[0]);case 2:return Cg.h(arguments[0],arguments[1]);default:for(var c=[],d=arguments.length,e=0;;)if(e<d)c.push(arguments[e]),e+=1;else break;return Cg.j(arguments[0],arguments[1],new gc(c.slice(2),0,null))}}3"
On the other side I've felt a lot of the ecosystem work that was done has a more "timeless" quality. Coupled with java interop I haven't ever felt wanting when I do reach for it for some hobby projects I keep up with.
One thing I will say, since it takes a different tack and philosophy, I think any programmer learning some of it benefits from the different perspective.
in my opinion competes with python when it comes to DS/ML. I find it a lot more comfortable to use if you use emacs bindings
The lang itself is good and I recommend folks use a LISP sometime. I was just genuinely surprised a 17-year-old lang was lacking in these areas, and I'd be pretty careful about setting out on a long-term project with it, unless all of those things have radically improved from 6 months ago.
(And like other folks said, you genuinely need editor integrations to not be wasting all your time on pren balancing. Not clj's fault, just LISPs in general.)
Compared to Go, it has a weak stdlib, is more memory intensive, and generally slower. You get beautifully concise code but it can be very hard to follow (or return to after time away).
Go can look completely idiotic or unbelievably focused and practical, depending on the light. It is painful to give up Clojure’s very strong selling points but I find alternatives to be more pragmatic.
The contrast ratio here is 3.9:1 (text #DC2626, background #E5E7EB), and the minimum recommended for small text is 4.5:1.
Sorry to be that guy :) I am enjoying the tutorial.
1. When I read about Clojure (repeatedly) I like it. I am especially interested in transducers. I even built a half baked transducer engine in JavaScript using generators. There is clearly something here of value here. Any system that can produce transducers is worth learning.
2. I spent too many years of my life on Java. It was okay until someone wrote a thing in php (!!) in a day that would be have taken at least a month in Java. Maybe two. I understand the "good" of Java, but for me personally, the cost of that good is just incredible tedium. This is personal and I understand that.
3. However, as soon as I get to the part of installing Clojure where you install a JVM, I start hearing voices that say "It ain't me babe" and "Just say no to Java". PTSD?
For a while there was Clojure-script and I started working with that, but it seemed to fall off the edge of the world.
I will happily try Clojure again if it will compile itself or if it does not require the installation of a JVM. [ And last but not least of irrational reactions- anything associated with Oracle is to be avoided like the plague. sorry]
[Edit: then I saw the stuff about Babashka so I will give that a try]
As is it basically just shows you how to do arithmetic, which isn't interesting at all.
> "3(1 2)"
Yup, I'm out.
I can't believe that after all these years Java still didn't fix their startup time.
I use Clojure nearly daily at my job and at home. Sometimes it's standard Clojure, sometimes it's the excellent Babashka flavor which I use as a make-like task runner and Zsh-like script replacement. It's not the only language I use of course, and Go is a strong second place most of the time especially if I need something compiled to a single binary. But Clojure is where I generally feel most at home thanks to the irreplaceable REPL based development flow which is more like a dialogue with my program than your typical write compile run loop.
Combine that with it running on the JVM and you have a wonderful set of tools to get things done in a pleasant way.
I strongly encourage anyone with even a passing interest in Lisp and functional programming to give it a try. If you're using VSCode there is the excellent Calva plugin to help you out.