My point was simply that Rich built Clojure to solve his own problems, not to coddle beginners. Beginners are the lowest common denominator not because they are stupid but because they are inexperienced, by definition.
> Moreover, the more senior you are, the more you begin to appreciate clear precise error messages that directly point to the problem.
Hopefully the more senior you are, the less you encounter errors in the first place.
> There's only so much brainpower, and I'd rather spend it on solving a problem, and not on figuring out/memorizing yet another cryptic error message.
And I'm saying that's not the Clojure experience once you're up and rolling. You iterate over program construction in small manageable chunks, with immediate feedback from an editor jacked into a cider repl, and your repl experiments evolve into long-standing tests.
Also, even if the Clojure language doesn't necessarily cater to the beginner, the Clojure community definitely does. There are constant efforts to evolve better docs, extend tooling, and build user groups that reach out to beginners.
> coddle beginners
> stooping to the lowest common denominator
You keep saying that people are stupid. And since you keep iterating it, I believe this is the point you are making, not some speculation about what Rich Hickey does or does not.
> if the Clojure language doesn't necessarily cater to the beginner
A dev-frienndly language does not cater just to beginners. Everyone benefits.
> There are constant efforts to evolve better docs, extend tooling, and build user groups that reach out to beginners.
So, they do stoop to the lowest common denominator and coddle? Why can't Clojure?
I think that you're doing it right as long as you're using a language that helps you be productive and brings you joy. Sounds like you're already good where you're at.
> I didn't say that, because I don't feel that way.
Yet your language betrays your feelings.
I would never in my life use words like "stoop to lowest common denominator" or "coddle beginners" when talking about beginners (or other developers in general).
The rest of your message is a thinly veiled contempt at best. So, good weekend to you, too.
> My point was simply that Rich built Clojure to solve his own problems, not to coddle beginners.
And if Rich likes Clojure, he can go nuts with it.
But a significant chunk of Hackernews believes that Clojure is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or even the obvious successor/replacement to all other Lisps. As an experienced programmer myself, if someone told me that Clojure is better suited to my application needs than CL or Scheme, I would tell them no, and fuck you. And this is part of why; there are other deficiencies and quibbles I have with Clojure's design.
> Moreover, the more senior you are, the more you begin to appreciate clear precise error messages that directly point to the problem.
Hopefully the more senior you are, the less you encounter errors in the first place.
> There's only so much brainpower, and I'd rather spend it on solving a problem, and not on figuring out/memorizing yet another cryptic error message.
And I'm saying that's not the Clojure experience once you're up and rolling. You iterate over program construction in small manageable chunks, with immediate feedback from an editor jacked into a cider repl, and your repl experiments evolve into long-standing tests.
Also, even if the Clojure language doesn't necessarily cater to the beginner, the Clojure community definitely does. There are constant efforts to evolve better docs, extend tooling, and build user groups that reach out to beginners.