Two follow-ups categorizing results from the "missing language" and
"weaknesses" questions:
http://tech.puredanger.com/2013/11/19/state-of-clojure-language-features/
http://tech.puredanger.com/2013/12/01/clj-problems/
Alex
On Monday, November 18, 2013 1:32:56 PM UTC-6, Chas Emerick wrote:
>
> R
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Brian Craft wrote:
> have pointed out, the host is inconsistent, so "use interop" is not a
> complete solution. Interop is a poor excuse for writing poor libraries. For
> comparison, consider that javascript library authors manage to deliver a
> consistent API acr
I at least partly agree with most of the replies here. Yes, interop counts
for something, and I arguably should have started there, but it's
orthogonal to the question of how solid clojure libraries are, on average.
You might choose not to write a library because it adds nothing beyond what
int
"The increased # of questions probably also reduces survey conversion" ...
I ran out of time because it was so long, and had a lot of other things to
do, so I didn't submit my entry this year.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> Yes, the path separator is O/S dependent:
>
> u
Yes, the path separator is O/S dependent:
user> (import '(java.io File))
java.io.File
user> (reduce #(File. %1 %2) ["one" "two" ".." "three"])
#
user> (.getCanonicalFile (reduce #(File. %1 %2) ["one" "two" ".." "three"]))
#
user> (.getPath (reduce #(File. %1 %2) ["one" "two" ".." "three"]))
"one/
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM, James Reeves wrote:
>
>
> I think in this case it's more a problem with the Java API, which the fs
> library wraps. Until Java 7, I don't think relative path normalisation
> existed in the core Java libraries.
>
>
It didn't, and .toPath isn't in the 1.6 java.io.Fil
2013/11/19 Phillip Lord
> Laurent PETIT writes:
>
> >> One of the interesting questions, I think, is the embrace the host
> >> notion. One solution to the problems you describe is to just use the
> >> equivalent java libraries. Is this a failure of the clojure library
> >> ecosystem or a pragmat
Laurent PETIT writes:
>> One of the interesting questions, I think, is the embrace the host
>> notion. One solution to the problems you describe is to just use the
>> equivalent java libraries. Is this a failure of the clojure library
>> ecosystem or a pragmatic solution?
>>
>
> YMMV : a pragmati
On 19 November 2013 14:22, Brian Craft wrote:
>
> For example, I have a project with rather modest requirements, one of them
> being abstract path manipulation. In javascript:
>
> path.normalize(path.join("one", "two", "..", "three"))
> 'one/three'
>
> ruby:
>
> irb(main):003:0> Pathname.new("one
2013/11/19 Brian Craft
> What I don't expect is clojure users to report that the libraries are just
> great. Clojure libraries are very weak compared to other modern languages.
Bold statement, Brian. Surely you've tried at least 60% of the libraries
out there to make
your judgement more scienti
2013/11/19 Phillip Lord
> Brian Craft writes:
>
> > For example, I have a project with rather modest requirements, one of
> them
> > being abstract path manipulation. In javascript:
> >
> > path.normalize(path.join("one", "two", "..", "three"))
> > 'one/three'
> >
> > ruby:
> >
> > irb(main):003
Brian Craft writes:
> For example, I have a project with rather modest requirements, one of them
> being abstract path manipulation. In javascript:
>
> path.normalize(path.join("one", "two", "..", "three"))
> 'one/three'
>
> ruby:
>
> irb(main):003:0> Pathname.new("one") + "two" + ".." + "three"
I realize that's just an example, but I wouldn't expect to need anything
other than interop to do this (off the top, maybe java.nio.file.Path can be
constructed directly?):
(defn normalize-path [& rest] (-> (reduce #(new java.io.File %1 %2) rest)
.toPath .normalize))
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8
> This is trivial to work around, but I hit this kind of thing
> constantly with every clojure library I use: clojure libraries are
> about 70% implemented, and 90% correct, which makes a weak foundation.
> I was amused to find the Lisp Curse article a few weeks ago, which
> describes this situatio
On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:58:10 PM UTC-8, kovasb wrote:
>
> There are a large number of high quality libraries like instaparse,
> cascalog, storm, overtone, friend, etc. I find it pretty easy to tell
> the difference between a hobby and production project. Besides the
> typically liveline
One note on the ordering questions: each of them were constructed to
present a randomized ordering to each new respondent, so there was no
bias introduced by a default ordering.
Cheers,
- Chas
On 11/18/2013 03:09 PM, kovas boguta wrote:
Great job Chas.
Some notes on methodology and then som
I will second http://clojure-toolbox.com and I also recently found:
http://www.clojuresphere.com/
On Monday, November 18, 2013 4:01:27 PM UTC-5, Brian Craft wrote:
>
> Wow, this result is shocking to me:
>
> In short, Clojure libraries are easy to find, their maintainers are
>> receptive to fee
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian Craft wrote:
> Also, I find it difficult to find libraries. When I do find libraries
> they're often deprecated, or moribund. What's the easy way to find clojure
> libraries?
>
There's http://www.clojure-toolbox.com, but your mileage may vary.
Viewing the
I used to find libraries using github's
now-modified-to-the-point-of-uselessness explore feature. Its probably
still possible to set up a decent search though.
There are a large number of high quality libraries like instaparse,
cascalog, storm, overtone, friend, etc. I find it pretty easy to tell
Wow, this result is shocking to me:
In short, Clojure libraries are easy to find, their maintainers are
> receptive to feedback and patches, they are technically of high quality,
> but they’re not always very well-documented. None of that is surprising or
> particularly different from last yea
Great job Chas.
Some notes on methodology and then some general comments
- That the survey was not featured on HN this time without a doubt
alone accounts for the slight dip in responses
- The 'missing' people are more likely fall into the 'hobbyist' camp,
which might explain the increased % of p
Results of this year's survey are available here:
http://cemerick.com/2013/11/18/results-of-the-2013-state-of-clojure-clojurescript-survey/
Thank you to all that participated!
Best,
- Chas
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post
22 matches
Mail list logo
