I’m not the person you’re asking, but speaking as someone who:
1. Learned to program in dynamic languages;
2. Learned FP in Clojure;
3. Writes [mostly, wherever possible] FP code in TypeScript for the last several years…
… I wish Clojure.spec was this or something a lot like it instead.
It’s cool that Clojure tried a novel approach to defining interface boundaries in a dynamic language. Other approaches (TS, Python, even PHP) have prioritized static analysis first with varying approaches to runtime. I think Clojure missed a design opportunity here by inverting that.
A design which treated spec as annotation first, runtime optional would have been an excellent opportunity for something like Coalton (or mypy) as a third party offering.
Ultimately this is mostly a cultural divide (as noted everywhere). But it’s a gap that’s hard to bridge without a huge effort like this. TypeScript is probably the most successful (reach) externally maintained type system for a dynamic language, but only on account of JavaScript’s own success in reach and being owned and invested in by a megacorporation. Doing this with Clojure (or any lisp) is infeasible without similar metrics.
I’ve often thought “there’s enough flexibility with Clojure, start it as a hobby project and see where it goes”. But I’m deterred because:
1. Even hobby projects using tech in ways it’s not designed for is a huge slog (me says as I go into weekend umpteen staring at a yak shaving integration with esbuild/Node/test runner).
2. The bar is very high. If you don’t support LSP, you’re basically barking at the moon. If it’s not syntax highlighted in README.md, no one’s interested. If it’s not mature there’s not enough adoption to build a community around it to even get it syntax highlighted. If it’s static typing in a lisp, you’re already narrowing the audience that might disregard all of the rest.
Sorry for the novel when you didn’t even ask me, but… this is all pretty much what flooded my thoughts the moment I saw/read this post and asked myself “how do I feel about this relative to clojure.spec?”
eyelidlessness|4 years ago
1. Learned to program in dynamic languages;
2. Learned FP in Clojure;
3. Writes [mostly, wherever possible] FP code in TypeScript for the last several years…
… I wish Clojure.spec was this or something a lot like it instead.
It’s cool that Clojure tried a novel approach to defining interface boundaries in a dynamic language. Other approaches (TS, Python, even PHP) have prioritized static analysis first with varying approaches to runtime. I think Clojure missed a design opportunity here by inverting that.
A design which treated spec as annotation first, runtime optional would have been an excellent opportunity for something like Coalton (or mypy) as a third party offering.
Ultimately this is mostly a cultural divide (as noted everywhere). But it’s a gap that’s hard to bridge without a huge effort like this. TypeScript is probably the most successful (reach) externally maintained type system for a dynamic language, but only on account of JavaScript’s own success in reach and being owned and invested in by a megacorporation. Doing this with Clojure (or any lisp) is infeasible without similar metrics.
I’ve often thought “there’s enough flexibility with Clojure, start it as a hobby project and see where it goes”. But I’m deterred because:
1. Even hobby projects using tech in ways it’s not designed for is a huge slog (me says as I go into weekend umpteen staring at a yak shaving integration with esbuild/Node/test runner).
2. The bar is very high. If you don’t support LSP, you’re basically barking at the moon. If it’s not syntax highlighted in README.md, no one’s interested. If it’s not mature there’s not enough adoption to build a community around it to even get it syntax highlighted. If it’s static typing in a lisp, you’re already narrowing the audience that might disregard all of the rest.
Sorry for the novel when you didn’t even ask me, but… this is all pretty much what flooded my thoughts the moment I saw/read this post and asked myself “how do I feel about this relative to clojure.spec?”
SuaveSteve|4 years ago