[kickopotomus]

Sometimes it seems as if Cognitect just doesn't want people to use Clojure. It's like they looked at the results from the survey[0], created a tool that appears to address some of the main gripes that people have, and then proceeded to say "screw you" to all of the people that use Clojure commercially and may actually pay for Datomic...

[0]: https://danielcompton.net/2018/03/28/clojure-survey-2018

[dang]

I know how easy it is to come up with interpretations like that but the site guidelines ask you to push pause before simply posting them. They have a destructive effect, one that compounds nonlinearly.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[yen223]

Haskell's motto is "avoid success at all costs", but it feels like it applies more to Clojure.

I genuinely believe that Clojure could have taken over the world if it had a more sensible open-source governance model.

[_halgari]

Closed source I understand, they must have something in there they don't want to give away completely for free. But "no commercial use" just cuts out something like 90% of the user base. Because depending on your definition of those terms it would also apply to anyone building anything with it that they plan on selling in the future. Even paid tutorials on how to use it would be out of the question.

It's like "how to not get people to use your tool" 101

[jwhitlark]

I was at the talk, and IIRC he said something about developing it while working with a client. It's quite likely it's a contract obligation.

[robto]

I don't know what world releasing a tool that addresses some of the main gripes that people have is a "screw you", but it doesn't seem like a pleasant one to inhabit. The important bits are in Clojure 1.10.