logoalt Hacker News

My thoughts after using Clojure for about a month

80 pointsby speckxyesterday at 7:56 PM32 commentsview on HN

Comments

HiPhishyesterday at 10:04 PM

> I am now generating this website with Clojure

As everyone knows, you are not a true lisper until you have written your own static site generator.

It gave me such a great high with how easy it was to add my own "templating engine" on top, implemented all using macros. The downside is that the crash came hard; there is so much more to a good static site generator such as optimizing the output, supporting scoped CSS, server-side rendering of SPA framework components, and of course integration with the Node ecosystem (for better or for worse there is just so much useful stuff). I have since moved over to Astro. It's still fascinating how far I was able to push my own SSG all by myself though.

show 1 reply
mekenyesterday at 10:05 PM

> I do wish there were an easier way to move in the ]}]})))}-ness of block ends though.

I’m not quite sure what this means. How is it different/worse than all parens..?

fyi I use paredit and just hit ) and it moves me past any kind of paren/bracket. But even without that you can just hit left and right..?

gertlabsyesterday at 10:02 PM

The functional paradigm is a bit uncomfortable at first, but it does make problem solving feel... different. I personally find OOP to be the most intuitive for large scale systems design, but that's just me.

Most models do not perform particularly well in Clojure, but OpenAI models fully utilize the power of the language. Subjectively, it kind of seems to match the personality. Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings?provider=openai

show 6 replies
pdimitaryesterday at 10:17 PM

With respect, this topic in particular has been beaten to death.

I too liked Clojure when I tried it some years ago (agreed on the composition and data structures; both are _great_). But the real value-add is in the runtime, not the syntax. Java has a solid runtime but it's not yet as good as Erlang's, maybe even not up to the standards of Golang -- I am talking concurrency / parallelism here (for memory management I have no doubts Java is very good). And I know: green threads and stuff. Well, call me when you can do what Erlang / Golang can do. Then I'll look again, very seriously too.

Programming language syntax scarcely matters. It does to some extent but we the programmers tend to over-romanticize it. The runtime and its properties are the much better thing to optimize for.

show 4 replies
NetMageSCWyesterday at 10:24 PM

I wonder if the author is familiar with Smalltalk - it has a very small syntax. In some ways so does Lisp, in other ways it has more than every other language, depending on what you think about operators versus functions.

smitty1eyesterday at 10:50 PM

"Lua: everything is a table

Tcl: everything is a string

Lisp: everything is a list"

Python: {"everything":"dictionary"}

temporallobeyesterday at 11:43 PM

I’ve been using Clojure for almost 10 years and it still feels like a foreign language to me. I call it “parenthetical hell”.

BoingBoomTschakyesterday at 10:17 PM

> The seq abstraction, for example, means I usually don’t have to worry about what kind of sequence I’m dealing with

Eh? That's completely lifted from CL (https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/t_seq...). Same for AREF/NTH, there's ELT.

Other than that, I agree, CL is baroque yet needs some hole filling here and there.

> Lisp: everything is a list

But that's wrong. Not even a little. Unless you mean LISP 1.5...

> Too much syntax

Funnily, I'm mostly okay with the new vector/set/hash-table literals, my big problem and that of some other people is the use of vectors in macros/special operators instead of lists. `(let [a b] ...)` instead of `(let (a b) ...)` is _not_ okay.

show 1 reply