News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by peferron on Saturday June 13, 2020 @05:03PM (#23512716)
(Not the person you responded to.) My direct interactions with the Clojure community have been very pleasant and helpful, and I have zero complaints there. But when searching around for common questions related to Clojure, I often run into answers along the lines of "Clojure doesn't have X because our language is so superior we don't need it", which does sound cultish.

For example, I was looking for GraphQL ClojureScript libs a few days ago, and found a thread where the first answers were essentially:

- "If you can’t find a framework that does it, chances are it’s so easy to do in Clojure/ClojureScript that nobody bothers to put an abstraction there"

- "Datomic has been doing what GraphQL offers plus much more since like 2013"

Both answers are a bit cultish. The first suggests a lack of enlightenment. The second suggests that salvation can be found by embracing the cult even further and locking yourself into a proprietary database invented by Clojure's author and used almost exclusively by Clojurists.

(Edit: This thread was from 2017. Such answers may have become more rare since then.)

Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by dustingetz on Saturday June 13, 2020 @05:31PM (#23512924)
The second was probably me. Sorry about that. My words reflect me as an individual who is sometimes socially challenged, not the wider Clojure community.
Re:Microsoft: Rust Is the Industry’s ‘Best Chance’ at Safe S... by peferron on Saturday June 13, 2020 @05:43PM (#23513032)
Ouch—I didn't link to the thread in my previous comment specifically because I didn't want to point fingers at people who were trying to help back in 2017, even if I disagree with their answers, but here you are anyway! For what it's worth, I'd rather have more people in the Clojure community than fewer, even if I don't always share the same viewpoints.