| I don’t imply anything. I state (pun very much intended). I cannot consider seriously anybody who thinks that programmer convenience and maintainability are different things on any level. And focusing on one doesn’t need the other. Also this speech is academic blabla. I understand it, but there is a reason why he had to build a completely new vocabulary… because it’s not simple and easy at all. And there is a reason why there is exactly zero examples in almost the whole speech. Because I can give you a very, very good example to contradict the whole speech: NAND gate. Also you can code in Haskell basically with the same logic as in imperative languages (I used Clojure rarely, so I cannot say the same). So the “simplicity” is there only if you want to. But that’s true also the other way around: you can have the same “simplicity” in languages where mutability is the default. I agree that you should do immutability by default, but it’s stupid to enforce it. And he said the same thing, just it was a half sentence, because it contradicts everything what he preached: there are cases when his simplicity toolkit is the worse option. Ruthless immutability causes less readable and maintainable code in many cases. And I state it, and I can give you an example right away (not like Hickey did): constructing complex data. Also every time when somebody comes up with ORM and how bad it is, I just realize that they are bad coders. Yes, a lot of people don’t know how to use them. But just because it allows you to do bad things, doesn’t mean that it’s bad. You can say the same thing about everything after all. Every high level languages are slower than code in Assembly. Does that mean that every high level languages are OMG, and we should avoid them? Obviously not. You need to know when to touch lower layers directly. This is especially funny because there is a thread about that part on Reddit, because he used some vocabulary which is basically non existent, and the thread is a clear example of that people don’t even know what’s the problem with it. It’s a common knowledge that it’s bad, and they don’t know even why. For example, whoever fuck up a query through ORM, would fuck up the same way just with different syntax, like with a loop, because they clearly don’t know databases, and they definitely don’t even heard about normal forms. And yes I state it again, using flexible type systems add unnecessary layer of problems. I also like that he mentioned Haskell, because it makes it clear, that his speech is completely orthogonal to the discussion here. |
It looks like you're mischaracterizing Hickey's talk. The distinction between "simple" (not intertwined) and "easy" (familiar) isn't "academic blabla' - it's fundamental to building maintainable systems.
Your NAND gate example actually supports his point: we build higher-level abstractions precisely because working at the lowest level isn't always optimal. That's what Clojure's immutable data structures do - they provide efficient abstractions over mutation.
As for "constructing complex data" being harder with immutability - have you ever heard about Clojure's transients or update-in, lenses or Specter? They make complex data manipulation both readable and efficient.
The ORM critique isn't about "bad coders" - it's about impedance mismatch between relational and object models. Even expert users hit fundamental limitations that require workarounds.
Calling dynamic typing an "unnecessary layer of problems" at this point is pretty much just your opinion, as it is clear that you have one-sided experience that contradicts everything I said. The choice between static and dynamic typing involves real tradeoffs; there isn't a clear winner for every situation, domain, team, and project, you can "state" whatever you want, but that's just fundamental truth.