Java has more build tools then Clojure, so thus is more “more fragmented” apparently. I replied “wat” as a slang version of “what” and a short version of “what do you mean” because that’s the only reasonable reply to “spec seems kind of weird and not well thought out either”. I’m asking OP to qualify there statement with something that could even start to be a conversation about various tradeoffs.
But really, i wish i hadn’t hit enter and i wish i could delete my comment because OP’s comment isn’t a good entry point to discussion anything.
Even in the most naive models your "market value" is based off Demand (how many jobs) AND supply (how many people can do the job), you need to be concerned about the ratio, not one side or the other.
If Pytyon has 100 jobs and 100 people then the ratio is 1
If Clojure has 10 jobs and 5 people then the ration is 2 and Clojure has a healthier market for you then python.
I'm saying that it's hard to build a basic lego block with another lego block. You have to use plastic, heat and a mold.
That's why we have a wide range of programming languages at different levels, and why it's common for people to say "high level" or "low level" languages.
It's unclear to me what your suggesting, or what question your asking really.
CSS suffers from the lack of composability and organizational features found in modern high level programming languages. If your excited about modern css features like "is" or "has", then you agree it needs more functions to keep up with customer demand.
The reason, clojure and clojurescript is relevant is those programming languages can easily compile to css, allowing users to easily add pl features that don't exist in css and not force devs to learn the same concepts twice. It can do this becuase as a lisp, turning clojure native hashmaps into classes (or attributes if you prefer) is like pouring water into a container. We numerous libs to do this in the clojure ecosystem, here is a reddit discussion around the newest one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/w56tg8/shadowcss_c...
Though i would personally opt for the slower page perf and faster dev performance of just using cljs compiled to inline-styles solution, as i suggest in my blog.
Of course there might be performance benefits to coding at the lower css level directly, but on average that's not a good tradeoff for most teams i have worked on. s
I'm asking a question about human psychology really. Maybe in a too cheeky way, because I feel some language enthusiasts, unintentionally, do the same by implying there programs are "safer" by being more constrained, without really justifying the claim.
I'm asking how haskell encourages people to use composable well understood abstractions and data structures?
Clojure does this by putting them into the syntax itself as primates E.g ([] () #{} {}) see? the list () contains a list of things, one of which itself is a list. This cuts away the translation barrier, i don't have to label the ocean as wet if your in it.
In this way all clojure developers are lead to think and talk to the machine the same way, this unifies how all Clojure programmers often choose to express intent.
It's at the heart of what Rich wanted for the language, making simple easy. Or as i see it know, making simple useful structures so easy to reach for, your discouraged, before you know better, to do something else. That's why i view clojure as more constrained then haskell, because I'm not sure haskell has that level of built in encouragement in it's design. I think the authors were interested in what could be, as where rich has taken a much narrow stance on how to deliver high level programs.
it's not clear to me, and from the studies i have seen, that Haskell leads to less unintended exceptions than Clojure.
haskell might certainly lead to less nil pointer expections, but that doesn't even mean the faulty logic is easier to resolve right?
what I'm saying is, no one pays to avoid nil pointer expections. if they did, i would simply right no code and call it a day.
the question is, does a language let you express your intent accurately. imo, this is what clojure gets right, because it helps me talk to the machine in the machines terms: datastructures.
clojure makes using well understood types easy by putting them into the snytax. it wires it into your brain.
my worry is, and hear this on every level, haskell is too open ended, people will choose to reinvent lists and sets and hashmaps making it harder and harder to understand how anything can compose together.
But really, i wish i hadn’t hit enter and i wish i could delete my comment because OP’s comment isn’t a good entry point to discussion anything.