First of all, sorry that this post is so long-winded. I don't have a blog, so this seems like the best place to put to words something I've been thinking about for a while.
One subject I haven't seen discussed is that of Clojure as a "first language." By that I mean, the programming language that a person first learns before learning any other programming language. I'm no expert at computer programming, which is why this subject interests me in the first place, but I do think there is a strong case for Clojure's candidacy as a novice's first language. I'm not sure if I can call Clojure my first language. I've taken a 101 and 102 course in Java. I've dabbled in Python, Ruby, and even Io, in order of precedence. But I've never done any significant work or projects. I read a lot about programming, I subscribe to many of the programming rss feeds, but I only ever write code when it delights me, not because I have to. And, of most of the languages I've tried, the languages eventually got in the way and I lost interest. To my delight, Clojure doesn't get in my way. I can hack and play and explore with minimal fuss. I've now written more in Clojure than any other language. Now, as to whether my positive experience with Clojure is indicative of Clojure's appropriateness as a first language, I have to ask myself whether, in all my years on the sidelines of programming, I've unconsciously progressed and am no longer a novice. In other words, am I a good subject for this discussion -- a case study on Clojure as a first language? I think I am, but perhaps other programming novices like me can un-lurk, chime in, and give their experiences. Seeing as how Clojure is geared towards functional programming, one might think these really advanced concepts of macros, immutability, laziness, etc., aren't suitable for beginners. In fact, I think languages like Haskel have created a stigma around functional programming. A friend of mine is in the same boat as I am and I can't get him to try Clojure because he doesn't feel like he can "dive in" to functional programming at this point. True, Clojure has some advanced concepts, but I've written some neat toy programs in Clojure so far (a small chat server/client, a cellular automaton, some cli tools) and I haven't used any macros, multi-methods, parameter destructuring, or any other gizmos. I feel confident I'll move on to those when I'm ready. So yes, Clojure is advanced but it is also simple and easy to understand. This is due in part to the homoiconicity of Clojure (and Lisp). As a novice, I can immediately recognize the benefits of homoiconicity, as it lowers the bar to entry – my impression is that it provides a more uniform canvas on which to paint, where I can say "if this works here, then it will also work there." The transactional memory, as it has often been compared to garbage collection, has also significantly lowered the bar to entry for novices like myself. I first wrote my multi-threaded chat server/client in Java and my Clojure version is much more readable. The Java version worked but the Clojure version worked correctly. I know that it's also been argued in academic circles that Scheme (or some functional language) should be one's first language, not Basic, because it teaches you to think about programming the "right" way the first time. I can't speak with them as an expert but I can say that if they are right, Clojure makes even more sense. This has been my experience. Even as a novice, Clojure's access to Java libraries has enabled me to experiment and learn on my own. Keep in mind, I'm only doing it because it's fun – There's nothing forcing me to write code. Now, with that being said, if it's true that Clojure is indeed a good candidate for a first language, is that worth anything? I hope I've stimulated some thought (and discussion) about the relationship between Clojure and novice programmers, but I also want to argue for taking this aspect of Clojure into account when creating the future of Clojure and it's libraries. Accommodating novices as a "first language" doesn't have to be a stated design goal, but it should at least be known that the simplicity of Clojure is a win for novices everywhere, and that can only benefit Clojure. Specifically, I would ask, can Clojure be kept simple? Can it even move towards more simplicity? If two future features in Clojure overlap to some degree, can they be combined, for the sake of simplicity? "More simplicity" might cause a knee-jerk reaction in some people's minds, but it can be argued that simplifying some things, like abstracting the first/rest cons-cell notion from lists on to the rest of Clojure's data-structures, has made Clojure more powerful. For me, it's also made things easier to understand. As a side note, I'd like to add that the helpfulness and maturity of the Clojure community is also a win for novices using Clojure. Please, keep being awesome and helpful and keep gently guiding those of us who are still learning in the right direction. Thanks for listening and thanks for Clojure! -- John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
