[fredrikholm]

Greenspun's tenth rule, adopted for 2022:

  > Any sufficiently complicated TypeScript or Java program contains an ad hoc,
  > informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Clojure.

Once you grokk the approach and workflow Clojure takes in solving problems, the distance between having an idea and writing a rock solid implementation of that idea is the shortest I've experienced in my ~20 years of programming.

If you want to write succinct, transparent code whilst minimizing the future potential of introducing bugs, Clojure is as good as it gets.

[synthc]

Cute, but i'll counter with this one:

> Any sufficiently complicated Clojure program contains an ad hoc, > informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Spring.

[bcrosby95]

Ah, Spring - freeing Java developers from the horror of typing "new" since 2002.

[mypalmike]

If you did a Spring tutorial, I can see that this might be the takeaway. For me, I was thrown at a large project with a couple of large Spring codebases, I concluded that it's about structuring your code around an object graph with independent, testable, loosely coupled components.

[bcrosby95]

I use both Spring and Java professionally. For a pretty long time now. I was being somewhat sarcastic.

I mostly use Spring because it's pretty widespread and I figure - why fight the current. But I still think the benefit is minor for most projects. And the existence of Spring Boot makes me chuckle a bit.

[mypalmike]

I get you. I think it encourages a certain application structure that is at least recognizable across projects. There's a pretty big benefit to that, even if at the detail level it's just a way to avoid new.

[xapata]

Including Spring itself?

Jokes aside, can't Clojure simply call whatever you want from the JVM?

[dekelpilli]

Maybe theoretically true (I'm not sure about the extent of the completeness), but definitely not practically true when it comes to annotation-driven-development frameworks such as Spring.

[xapata]

Ah. While objects have their uses, I think the Clojurist might prefer, well, closures. That's not to say one is better than the other, just that the Clojurist probably won't miss the style of the Spring framework.

[xapata]

But it doesn't have reader macros!