Sure, it can be done. But do they really need to be set apart that way?
You'd be saying "These people we judge to be good because they have <quality they were born with>. They are different and better, and we appreciate them more than other developers because of this."
All the SJW political BS aside, this is simply prejudice.
Can you not imagine that it would feel uncomfortable to them-- they'll be pedestalized. And they'll be wondering why only they are on the pedestal, not others. Why they were singled out.
Only because of (recently trendy identity politics-motivated recognition of) <skin color/gender/etc.> not because they're a good engineer?
Do you really think that's what they want:
to be valued because of how they were born?
to be valued because of something that is not in their control, versus the skills the worked so hard to build and be recognized for?
And you think they want recognition as part of a certain grievance group, which only recently became "fad" political norm?
I wouldn't operate a business based on ideological fads or movements such as identity politics. (Nor would I work with one as an employee or customer of such a business-- I would avoid them because of their politically-possessed animus which could impact business).
That just sounds like bad business sense. And it sounds like you're OK with representing your company as a company captured, possessed, and influenced by ideological trends (which vary over time and space-- making political movements & political ideology a terrible thing to base business policy on).
I prefer a programming language that allows me to pick and choose which paradigms I want to follow-- whether OOP or FP, mutable or immutable, etc. I don't need Clojure to do that for me.
Personally, I am trying to figure out why a closed source language is producing such activism-- trying to increase the popularity importance of the language... despite the fact that it's a privately owned language-- not really "open source"-- everything flows through one man & his company, which come first & above, regarding the language's development.
Rich Hickey: [Paraphrasing] "Open source isn't about you. I created this, it's mine, and I'll change it when and how I choose."
Clojure Community: "Hey, let's try to get more people into Clojure! Let's increase this community!"
I've noticed HackerNews has a lot of Clojure activists posting.
I worked with Clojure for about a month. Then I decided to go back to NodeJS.
- I have no need to java or JVM.
- The Clojure stack traces aren't easily decipherable
- One doesn't need Clojure for functional, immutable programming. NodeJS is flexible & has a massive community with tons of packages, including ones for immutable work. Functional programming on the other hand is simple-- just create & use JS functions (in the context of JS that is).
- Ultimately I saw no need for Clojure
What I do see though, is a small group of outspoken activists pushing clojure.
Now, why don't I want to use it, besides what I've written above?
Clojure is owned by Cognitect. Any changes to be made must be (very slowly or not at all) approved by Rich Hickey. This is a language with a development/expansion/growth bottleneck of one person.
This particular person considers the language his property-- which it is, he created it after all.
But once I realized this, I immediately moved back to the NodeJS & Python communities.
Also, Clojure libraries are mostly abandoned. Clojure's heyday seemed to be around 2005-2013 or so. Sure, you can find a couple recent ones like Reagent (for ReactJS rendering) which is a few versions behind ReactJS.
After working with it though, I saw no real benefit over simply using ReactJS directly. In fact, I found it cumbersome to have to work through two potential layers of errors: ClojureScript & Javascript.
Now we just see activists trying to pump it up in the news. I'd rather read about the interesting new things happening with JS and Python.
TL;DR; After working at a company with Clojure & ClojureScript, I realized that:
1. It's practically closed source
2. Most of its packages are abandoned
3. There is a small vocal group of folks pushing it... despite the fact that the community leaders seem to have (and claim to have) no interest in the community that has grown around the language.
4. Personally, I'd rather work with React directly than some transpiled language on top of it (which I have no use/need for, given that I have no use/need for java)
Gee I dunno-- "Why do people ask dumb questions?"