Re:Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011 [v...
by swah on Thursday October 20, 2011 @08:15PM
(#3137735)
I kinda regret having chosen Clojure for my project. Its not that I can't express ideas in very little code, its just that my workflow is different from languages like Python.
In Clojure, it seems that I can't apply the method of spike solution (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpikeSolution) and then refactor it into working code like I do with languages like Python or C.
Re:Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011 [v...
by jcromartie on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:36PM
(#3138104)
I'm wondering what about spikes doesn't work in Clojure? I usually understand a spike as a "proof of concept" that doesn't handle all of the edge cases.
Re:Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011 [v...
by seancorfield on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:59PM
(#3138162)
I'm curious why you feel you can't create spike solutions in Clojure?
Re:Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011 [v...
by swah on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:53AM
(#3139485)
Probably because pseudocode in my head is imperative.
Re:Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011 [v...
by mnemonicsloth on Saturday October 22, 2011 @01:36PM
(#3143905)
I think that's normal. Part of learning Clojure is learning to think in another kind of pseudocode.
What does this imply about the languages you already know?
I can actually just crank out code that I use. It can be quick and messy. Clojure is not concerned with type theory and provable correctness.
But the end result of a quick hack, in Clojure, is often something (or is made of of parts) that can be applied to other problems by pulling it out into a library, or by abstracting one more argument to a function, etc..
I think someone like Gabriel Weinberg could get along just fine in Clojure, with much the same spirit as hacking Perl, but maybe with better results.