I've tried Clojure for a while, but it didn't stick. It's probably the whole Lisp specific approach being the reason why Lisp never really took off as a main stream language. I've tried Scala after that and stayed with it since. Besides all the good points, Scala has Typesafe behind it - a solid stack/platform that (to best of my knowledge) Clojure doesn't have.
I've managed to do the opposite: Scala didn't stick, Clojure did. I guess there's some subjective reason why or why not Clojure/Scala would stick with someone.
However, it's false that Clojure doesn't have a company behind it: Cognitect is certainly backing up Clojure by developing ClojureScript and Clojure itself, Clojure consulting, the Datomic database and the Pedestal "framework".
First of all, you haven't indicated any problems with Clojure - just a circular argument about lisp.
Second, Typesafe is a tiny company, and the most prolific committer to the Scala compiler just quit - not just Typesafe, but Scala altogether. Doesn't seem rock solid to me.
Second, Typesafe is a tiny company, and the most prolific committer to the Scala compiler just quit - not just Typesafe, but Scala altogether. Doesn't seem rock solid to me.
I don't think it's that rude: He's stating a preference.
There are many reasons to not be fond of a language. Clojure is in the middle of two worlds: It's not as pure as a real lisp, and yet it still has all of lisp's syntactic sensibilities.
Some people dislike it for one reason, other dislike it for the other. Both reasons are quite valid, but I'd bet that reading like a lisp is the most popular reason.
My personal opinion is that if Lisp's approach to syntax was a winner, it'd have won a decade or two ago. But that doesn't mean other opinions are not valid.
And again, it's not that I don't appreciate Lisp: Many Lisp features have been added into members of the Algol family over the years, and it has made them better.
A good counter argument to the Lisp syntax issue was made by our host in his "Beating the Averages" essay: http://paulgraham.com/avg.html (jump down to the The Blub Paradox section if you wish).
Comments
I've tried Clojure for a while, but it didn't stick. It's probably the whole Lisp specific approach being the reason why Lisp never really took off as a main stream language. I've tried Scala after that and stayed with it since. Besides all the good points, Scala has Typesafe behind it - a solid stack/platform that (to best of my knowledge) Clojure doesn't have.
I've managed to do the opposite: Scala didn't stick, Clojure did. I guess there's some subjective reason why or why not Clojure/Scala would stick with someone.
However, it's false that Clojure doesn't have a company behind it: Cognitect is certainly backing up Clojure by developing ClojureScript and Clojure itself, Clojure consulting, the Datomic database and the Pedestal "framework".
Speaking of Datomic, are there any alternatives that are completely free?
Datomic has two free editions - Datomic Free and Datomic Pro Starter. http://www.datomic.com/pricing.html
I know about those, but the key word in my post was completely.
In what way are the free editions not free enough for you? (serious question, not trolling)
I'm guessing he means the GPL sense of free as in freedom, not free as in beer?
First of all, you haven't indicated any problems with Clojure - just a circular argument about lisp.
Second, Typesafe is a tiny company, and the most prolific committer to the Scala compiler just quit - not just Typesafe, but Scala altogether. Doesn't seem rock solid to me.
Clojure has several companies behind it.
Paul Phillips did NOT quit Scala altogether: https://github.com/paulp?tab=activity
This is a surprising bit of FUD that has taken hold amongst gleeful Scala haters.
In all fairness paulp has been bashing the shizazz out of Scala since his departure.
And yes, he's still involved, but far less so than before when he was working full-time on the compiler at TypeSafe.
On the plus side, Dotty, the new "simplified" Scala compiler, is in the works and collections library will likely be overhauled in the process.
as for Clojure, typed Clojure looks interesting, but otherwise the little rascal Haskell is my Scala escape hatch for the time being.
I'm not a scala hater. I've used it in production, and produced more than one open source library, and attended scala conferences at my own expense.
I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't have a rock solid base.
I would like to use scala more, but I found clojure easier to use and equally powerful in practice.
That is just a plain rude non-argument that smears Lisp because you didn't like clojure.
I don't like clojure either, but it has nothing to do with its Lispy-ness.
I don't think it's that rude: He's stating a preference.
There are many reasons to not be fond of a language. Clojure is in the middle of two worlds: It's not as pure as a real lisp, and yet it still has all of lisp's syntactic sensibilities.
Some people dislike it for one reason, other dislike it for the other. Both reasons are quite valid, but I'd bet that reading like a lisp is the most popular reason.
My personal opinion is that if Lisp's approach to syntax was a winner, it'd have won a decade or two ago. But that doesn't mean other opinions are not valid.
And again, it's not that I don't appreciate Lisp: Many Lisp features have been added into members of the Algol family over the years, and it has made them better.
A good counter argument to the Lisp syntax issue was made by our host in his "Beating the Averages" essay: http://paulgraham.com/avg.html (jump down to the The Blub Paradox section if you wish).