Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashtonkem | Hacker News Reader

I also found that Clojure is full of weird edge behavior. Sets are unsafe, and might change the type on you. Seq leaks like a sieve, so there are all kinds of places where you have to map seq, and type hinting is the worst. The moment you type hint a Protocol, all kinds of weird shit starts to happen, including the need to import the type hinted classes in the consumer (except Java.util.*), even if you don’t reference it. Oh, and if you type hint protocols wrong, it doesn’t error, but your performance remains bad.

At least it did in 2017. I haven’t used it since then.

View on HN

I don't know what "sets" refers to here - idiomatic Clojure does no such thing (there are some facilities with the word "set" in them but they are all rarely used). seq is not leaky at all imo, it's a model that choose to use (https://clojure.org/guides/faq#seqs_vs_colls). Or you can choose not to use it now with transducers and use any of the seq functions and collect into a specific collection type. I don't know what you're talking about with protocols, typically you don't need to type hint them, and I think there may have been an issue with unqualified imports on referred functions but that was fixed several releases ago.

Set as in the collection. Sets are idiomatic, they even have syntax sugar for their construction: #{}.

Seq is extremely leaky, as whether or not a built in function takes a seq or a specific collection is undocumented and arbitrary. Hashmaps for example do not accept seqs when using “into”, it accepts vectors. So my code was littered with (into {} (map vec <thing>)). That’s a leaky abstraction.

You need to hint protocols if you want to go fast.

I have trouble understanding almost all of these complaints. I have been developing Clojure for two years now at two different shops and haven't encountered the issues you describe.

I have to concur that it's not easy to gather what's idiomatic and why.

It took me watching the "transducers", "inside transducers" and "reducers" talks several times, before i realized that `into`, `transduce`, `eduction`, etc are the same family of functions, providing transducing contexts.

Despite that, I have no idea what are those issues in the critique above.

To me it smells like trying to do something forcefully, instead of stepping back and approaching the problem differently, in simpler ways.

Other way to avoid such issues is to formulate the problem clearly and ask it on a couple of forums, where more experienced Clojurists can answer it. This of course takes some time, sometimes hours, but it yields great results. I've received very insightful responses directly from authors of libraries on Github issues or Clojurians Slack and from Cognitect too about some advanced Datomic query technique.

I've noticed that some ppl, instead of asking for help, sweat out some convoluted, inconvenient way to solve a problem, then decide it's the only way to solve it in a specific language or with a library in question and they just keep copying that solution and teaching it to others too and constantly complain about it... It feels to me that OP might be in a similar situation to some extent.

I worked in Clojure for 2 years in a company that had people who’d used Clojure for 4-5. I spoke at the Conj before I got a full time job in Clojure. Of course we researched and experimented, and I find the suggestion that we didn’t do our due diligence extremely patronizing.

I’m more than happy to explain the issues I had, but don’t imply that the problem is that I don’t know any better and I’m doing it wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com