Building a Startup on Clojure(wobaka.com) |
Building a Startup on Clojure(wobaka.com) |
If you're really lucky, someone will have thrown in a bunch of 'specs' that make a bunch of assertions about the data, put them on the API entry points, and then scattered some slightly different specs with slightly more restrictive assertions on various 'internal APIs', resulting in random explosions in production!
And the joy of working with an esoteric language is that it attracts esoteric developers, who often get frustrated by the requirements of being a software engineer in a large company (i.e. everything that's not writing code), which leads to the aforementioned 100% dev churn (after a lot of shouting).
There are plenty of ways to mitigate the problems the author describes. A few of these things would be having coding standards to ensure that code is written in a way everyone is comfortable with. This also covers things like adding schemas and documentation for maintainability. Doing pairing and code reviews so that multiple developers are familiar with different parts of the codebase. Having good tests so that you can have confidence that the code does what's intended when you make changes.
I'm also not sure what makes Clojure esoteric. It's a clean and well designed language that embodies good principles. It's a niche language, but far from being esoteric. I've been using Clojure for over a decade now, and I've seen the opposite of developer churn. Most people are pretty happy to stay at a company using Clojure. The fact that there is high churn is suggestive of a toxic environment that drives people away.
Finally, here's [1] a talk from a founder of a Clojure startup that grew into a large successful company. Clojure didn't get in the way of that.
For example, Emacs has a massive amount of Elisp. Elisp is much more primitive than Clojure, and traditionally libraries don't use e.g. data schemas [1] as runtime contracts for data.
Obviously, once a system built on top of a dynamic language grows beyond certain threshold, you need to be very disciplined as there are no static types to ensure some degree of correctness.
With that said, it would be interesting to have a language from the ML family as a viable contender. Perhaps a modernized version of Standard ML. Or perhaps OCaml, if it gains some traction with multicore and algebraic effects.
F# is nice, but it's a bit of a watered down version of SML due to the lack of functors. Scala is too complex and far from ML in some regards. Haskell is good, but lacks critical developer mass and some libraries / laziness overcomplicate certain usecases.
In Lisp, function names describe actions. In OO, classes, inheritance, static properties, and getters and setters give at-a-glance hints as to the shape of the application's data model. In Clojure, we compensate, as you pointed out, with forms of documentation. I'll take that trade-off any day—I never want to go back to classes! But it's perhaps one reason for which Clojure has a reputation of being hard to read by other devs.
And many times purveyors of a bad tool blame the workman.
But I absolutely hate maintaining an old Clojure codebase (unless it's tiny).
The REPL helps a lot with discovering what the proper way is to call any random function you have in your code, but this is still really super annoying. I really hate to get into a dynamic-versus-static-typing debate, but I've long since come to the conclusion that -- all other things being equal (hah!) -- if I have to dig into a large and old project, I'd much rather have types by my side than not. Code will not ever be adequately documented or commented (and even if it _seems_ to be at first glance, you will always have nagging doubts about how up to date that info really is). This is where type definitions help to figure out the shape of the data that any piece of code is working with. People talk about adding spec/schema definitions but that doesn't solve all the problems with not having type definitions unless you add these spec/schema definitions _everywhere_ ... and let's face it, you just aren't going to do that in any Clojure project. So, best case scenario is you still have a large collection of functions in your project that are calling each other, etc that you are left having to deduce yourself what this random map or list actually contains.
However, I find myself running Ruby/Rails (console) in debug mode in RubyMine (Jetbrains IDE). The REPL-like experience seems quite close to that of Clojure, with the added benefit of being able to easily enable and disable breakpoints and see my local data (and snapshots of all previous local data up the call stack).
And honestly, the Clojure thing that always stops me from actually getting a full anything built is the lack of frameworks and approaches which have critical mass. It's always the same answer, "We like to choose our own libraries." That's lovely once you know what you're doing, but the ramp-up time is just SO much slower than with other languages.
Considering the time to working proof of concept is critical quite often, few beginners have time to figure out all the libraries and tooling and integrations to build something in Clojure.
I think despite still wishing I had a Clojure backend with Clojurescript/React frontend, I'll step from my Rails PoC to a Phoenix/Elixir product and be successful and happy (and have a lot of people doing something similar, with similar tools and libraries).
However, I do think that it harder to keep a large code base understandable when using a dynamic language v.s. a statically typed language.
Having problems with understanding the shape of expected data is certainly a problem experienced in larger Clojure code bases, I guess this is just a disadvantage of using Clojure.
Documentation, tests, spec/schema and good naming conventions can mitigate this disadvantage to some extent.
I found some the advice in this blog post useful: https://tech.redplanetlabs.com/2021/06/03/tour-of-our-250k-l...
everybody hates their language when they have 100k LOC of tech debt from 8 years ago
You're right that Clojure's sequence soup problem is painful at that scale (really any scale) but have you ever debugged Java? It's barely even possible, the project needs to drive $10M+/yr revenue to just not collapse once it reaches 500k+ LOC Java, 500k XML, 300k SQL ...
hard disagree ... Java is a dream to debug. I've hacked into complex applications countless times by remote attaching the debugger and setting breakpoints to step through what they are doing. You don't even need source code in many cases. I'd pick Java ahead of any other language on that front.
And let's be frank, XML, other than for Maven (where it can make sense), is not really a thing in modern Java.
- dev churn is just a fact of life in this industry
- I'd love to know which language stops you from having 100k LOC codebase that nobody understands! Certainly not C#, typescript, Java...
- "esoteric developers" - that's a bit glass half empty! In my experience people who have taken the time to learn functional programming or any non top-10 language are usually pretty smart and motivated.
Clojure, in the hands of someone that knows this, works wonders. It gives your team 10x productivity, safer more correct code, that's simple to extend and grow over time, keeping your velocity high and your tech dept low.
But if you don't know how to leverage it's strengths, what best practices to follow, you can end up in a mess like that.
And this is true of all languages honestly. I've seen this for C++, Java, JavaScript, C#, Scala, all kind of code bases that suffered this same fate, with 100% team attrition, and all kind of other issues.
I say this from first hand experience, 6 years on a team that transitioned to Clojure, in that time the team rotated fully twice, during the pandemic it had 100% attrition, even I left (working on another team), but all the new developers, even though they have zero Clojure experience, had no issue understand the code base and start making improvements and building new features, velocity saw no impact whatsoever. You get the usual some of them would rather it be something their more familiar with, others are loving it, some don't care either way. But no complaints about the code base itself, no talks of spaghetti code, or challenges to debug anything, or understand what's going on.
Basically don't expect Clojure to save you from yourself, it's an asset when you know what you're doing, not a safeguard when you don't.
Startups that act too much like big companies just don't ever get product out the door and fail before you can bitch about technical debt...
And to the article's title, "building a startup on Clojure," you're better off building a startup on a customer base.
This is a big problem with Dynamic languages. If you are new to the codebase, you have no idea of what the shape of the data is, what to expect etc.
Wow. Pretty insightful :)
When I did my last startup we switched from a Python API to Node for this reason. Python is a great language but there are no devs available where I live. I can't even imagine considering Clojure unless I was in a major tech hub.
The move to remote work is probably going to be a massive benefit to building in less mainstream languages.
If you're wondering what's so great about the Clojure repl (and other lisp repls) in particular, the thing is that you never have to actually type something into it. You can run evaluations from the code file itself. The structure of lisps makes it clear exactly which code you want to evaluate. To do this, I use the excellent CIDER package for emacs. I understand Calva for VS Code and Cursive for IntellJ offer similar functionality.
Here's a good talk on what this looks like:
After six years, I would absolutely (without hesitation) start another business with Clojure as the core.
Together with ClojureScript it's one of very few solutions for writing server/browser apps with shared code, which enables interesting economies.
If I were to start a new company I'd absolutely run it on clojure. Even without frontend/backend code reuse, REPL-driven dev---paredit is the killer app for me. It just makes editing text files, which is what we're doing if we admit it, so much easier.
It's a data point.
As far as the code goes, they wrote a custom DB that is O(nm) when counting tables---that is, it must count every record in the DB to count how many tables there are.
(Incidentally, I had forgotten this the other day and tried to do a "quick" table count...oops!)
I don't know Elixir or TS well enough to say if we have Ex/ts problems---from what I can tell:
- Elixir seems alright, I'd love to learn what the BEAM magic I keep hearing about is
- however, syntactically I find it pretty garbage, or at least uninspired. (Note that I am a spoiled Clojure guy and have this reaction to Python, Ruby, etc. I acknowledge people can get productive work done in them.)
- TS I have ha-ha-kinda-seriously trauma about from a previous job. I'm not a good person to ask here b/c I'm pretty firmly pro-dynamic in the Type wars. I will say that it is pretty freaking great to be able to have an emacs buffer open w/a repl to the cljs frontend we have for other apps, and that I really miss it whenever I have to go through the ts code.
> Any sufficiently complicated TypeScript or Java program contains an ad hoc,
> informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Clojure.
If you want to write succinct, transparent code whilst minimizing the future potential of introducing bugs, Clojure is as good as it gets.
Keep in mind that they have to juggle between almost four different languages, Java, Javascript, Clojure and Clojurescript, almost because there are differences between Clojure and Clojurescript. Instead of for example just using one language: JS.
ClojureScript is one of the main reasons why Clojure makes sense in my business. I can use the same language and share the same business logic code between the server and the browser app. That's huge!
Also, I avoid a load of problems related to communication and serialization, because the native serialization format is EDN, e.g. Clojure data structures. There is no need to adapt your data structures to the limitations of, say, JSON.
Also, what are the limitations of JSON that EDN handles better?
Conversely, you can also get to the end of your roadmap quickly (Clojure being great) and end up overstaffed.
There's a different line to walk with languages like Clojure.
Source: I walked this line.
Ah, you probably want to pay them 70k/year.
Most engineers we hired has no prior experience but learned quickly. It gave us a great advantage to hire the best.
Full disclojure: I work for the company in the talk, though I'm not one of the presenters.
I use leiningen, too. I tried other approaches, but had trouble getting them to do everything that I need (for example, AOT compilation of the entire code that goes into the final .jar), and I couldn't really see any massive advantages.
I usually default to leiningen: I can't be arsed to spend time configuring deps to do what lein does out of the box. (For example: building an uberjar)
In addition i have to say, that a lot of libraries are falling into clj-commons because the original developers no longer works on the project, other like compojure, that is mentioned in the blog post last stable release is from 2016 and version 2 is in alpha since then.
I am curious why are you using c3p0 on 2022 when hikaricp is being maintained, and last release of c3p0 is from 2019. Also no support for R2DBC.
My impression is that in the last 2 years, the ecosystem has shrink, less talks, less new libraries, new libraries that are no longer maintained.
Others problems arise is that Clojure lag a bit with compatibility with new Java features, still i think Clojure cannot pass Clojure functions as parameter to Java functions. It results in awkwardly having to reify Java function interface to pass function when using a Java library. No conversion from Java 8 CompletableFuture to clojure async primitives in 2022. And i think they not going to support it in the near future.
What i am saying is that Java is in the future, and Clojure is in the past. They just cannot catch with new Java features and i doubt they are going to support it ever. You can still run it on modern jvm because they update the bytecode but that is all.
Ouch, Java 8 was released in 2014. To be fair, Clojure was never a community project though.
- Tons of developers know it - Tons of Java developers can be made to know it with ease - A good default IDE experience within VS and VSCode, and a JetBrains product if you prefer it. - A good LSP implementation with OmniSharp if you don't want to use an IDE. - ASP.NET, a good default Web framework. - NuGet as a package manager with tens of thousands of packages. - Better than java reflection and runtime generics. - Cross-platform CLI tooling since .NET Core, now it's just .NET. - Ability to deploy self-contained applications. - Mono version of C# is used for making games. - A continuously evolving cohesive language with minimal competitors (like Groovy, Kotlin, Scala, Clojure, etc... on the JVM) - F# if you want a stricter functional language that interoperates with C# seamlessly. - PowerShell as a way of interactively running any .NET assembly, regardless of how it was compiled.
And many more... C# is one language you can build a career on and also use for hobbying and have fun.
The haters will complain that MSBuild (the default build system) and Visual Studio suck. If you've tried them in the past, you're probably right. Try them again in 2022 and see if your opinion doesn't change.
I do want to branch into F# and FP but i didnt want to miss on the C# train so i tried it and it blew my mind how well the language has been designed (i mean at C# 10, .NET 6). They even made the Java-esque boilerplate thingies become automated so the code reads and feels almost like a better version of Javascript.
I am a new programmer (with only Intermediate Python and tid bits of CS under my belt) but i think choosing C# for a language made sense because of all the things you mentioned, and it also helps that it is aesthetically very beautiful, and worlds apart from C and C++ in many respects.
- you have to
- skip a line
- between each bullet
- item
Clojure has pitfalls for sure, but no need to be dishonest in order to flag them.
That said I would love to work in a lisp full time. There's just something appealingly elegant about it.
so, yeah. while i'm excited with lisp, i don't think i have the gut to start my own shop with clojure as the main language.
Yes, definitely in growth periods you get the best developers migrating to it. I'd say Rust is like this now. The problem is a few years time they'll move on to the next big thing leaving you stuck. I'd think Clojure is in this spot right now.
Clojure is... esoteric now? I would understand if we were talking about, I don't know, INTERCAL. But Clojure? Is Scala 'esoteric' too?
> Python is a great language but there are no devs available where I live.
Ah, I see. Yeah, by that measure Clojure will be esoteric indeed. Python developers being rare is very surprising.
Yes, remote work for sure is an edge when hiring!
Also reminds me of the essay "The Python Paradox" by Paul Graham (http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html)
Wow. Where on Earth do you live? Real question, not being sarcastic.
Presumably not the US. I've found Python developers even in some fairly small towns (approx 25K people).
Focusing only on web stuff.. If you have a good grasp of design patterns and you can build out your system in a modular way, I think node is a great starting point.
I love starting with node because typescript is awesome, the performance is nice, the community support is tremendous, the scaling is easy, and finally it’s easy to move off it. If some part of the system starts becoming a bottleneck, just swap that piece out for something more suitable. One thing I like about this time right now is that most things are built just fine to be used in creating something new and useful products.
Getting to the point where you're writing good Python and taking advantage of what the language provides, knowing the ecosystem, and building things that other Python devs won't look at and think "Wtf?" takes much longer than weeks.
Then the library ecosystem is probably good for a lifetime.
If only there was a worldwide information technology network allowing people to work together remotely.
I have been working with ClojureScript (re-frame and reagent) on front-end stuff and, unfortunately, the REPL does not seem to help me that much on my workflow. I miss the REPL driven development, by the way... The real "interactive programming" seems to happen on Chrome Dev Tools + Browser's reactions to Chrome Dev Tools tweaks on the UI + (lastly) changes on the source code via the editor (Emacs in my case).
Namespaces as prefix of invocations on the REPL are not that trustworthy on ClojureScript, apparently. It could also be that I am a noob and I missed something, so... How do you feel about ClojureScript?
For view code I think hot reloading has been a great thing with Clojure/Script too. Everything is reloaded properly and the state remains.
I know that the setup for cljs is a bit more involved and things will break sometimes (putting a browser in the loop will do that). I have dev tools open ... but I use it less and less, between hot-reloading and a data browser (portal or reveal) hooked up to the clojurescript repl I only use dev-tools stuff occasionally (the network tab is still very important of course).
It does sound like you are missing something, I'd try out one of the shadow-cljs example projects or walkthroughs to see what an example setup includes as features to see what you might be missing.
[0]: https://figwheel.org
In the same way that most languages have lambdas, it's very different from being able to trivially compose functions into new functions. (This one I can't even describe well, but if you try and write SICP exercises in a lisp vs. python, the difference is obvious.
I think this is the key here. Clojure developers are expensive (see the Stack Overflow charts for how being a Clojure dev essentially guarantees a great salary) — but that's not because of them being Clojure developers, but rather because of them being more experienced, knowledgeable, and flexible than your "average" developer.
If you start a business and use Clojure, you should expect to hire more expensive developers. You will, however, need fewer of them, so this might all balance out in the end, especially as we all know that teams don't scale infinitely.
Dynamic typing and the lack of a formal compilation step are great for productivity, but they come at a cost. You need a proper CI pipeline to run linters (granted, you need that in statically typed languages too) and, most importantly, you need to write tests. Sure, you need to write tests for any language, but not having them for languages like Python is going to bite you that much harder.
I've seen pretty large Python codebases that worked just fine. And smaller Java codebases that were unmaintainable.
There's one framework that looks promising to build fully dynamic apps in pure CL with one code base (websockets inside). It provides a GUI-like experience to build all kind of apps (a website, a chat, the snake game…): https://github.com/rabbibotton/clog/
I am using Hunchentoot, a routing library on top (easy-routes), the Mito ORM, and for the client side I am conservative: HTML templates with Djula, interactivity with HTMX, Vue if required, JS.
The great thing is that I can build a standalone binary of my web app, including the static assets, the webserver, the lisp compiler and debugger… for ±28MB unzipped and instantaneous startup times.
https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/web.html
https://github.com/CodyReichert/awesome-cl#web-frameworks
https://lisp-journey.gitlab.io/blog/lisp-for-the-web-deploy-...
I use cl-who[1] for generating html and parenscript for javascript. I use clack on the backend, but hunchentoot is probably more popular. Both backends have plenty of routing libraries available (hunchentoot comes with a decent one baked in, clack does not).
postmodern is a Postgres specific sql backend that is great. There are database-agnostic SQL libraries as well (clsql and cl-dbi I believe are the two big ones) but I haven't tried them.
1: People whose opinions I trust have told me that spinneret is a better choice. It did not exist when I learned cl-who. cl-who is "good enough" for me that I haven't switched.
Example apps I can think of:
Screenshot bot: https://github.com/screenshotbot/screenshotbot-oss
Webcheckout: https://webcheckout.net/ (they were hiring recently)
Math Pastebin: https://github.com/susam/mathb
Ultralisp: https://ultralisp.org/ (built with their Weblocks refactoring)
A programmable desktop and bookmark application with CLOG (TEASER) https://www.reddit.com/gallery/w4rj4k (https://codeberg.org/mmontone/mold-desktop/)
It's great when you know what you're doing, and indeed, I have my own personal Leiningen templates to set up a Clojure project the way I like it and to save myself some time. Bigger project templates, like Luminus, I often find personally aggravating because I often feel like it just barfs a whole bunch of unnecessary and semi-complicated (in my opinion anyway) code in a new project even with the most minimal options chosen. But that's the power of the ecosystem ... you can create your own project templates to meet your own needs.
But a new developer getting their feet wet in this ecosystem? Yeah, it is hard. And even if they use an existing project template like Luminus to bootstrap their project ... well, the project template only helps generate the initial project. Ongoing maintenance for updating dependency versions and keeping a working integration of the libraries it initially set up for you (with respect to newer versions and any API/config changes, etc) ... well, those responsibilities are all on you! Kit (another newer successor to Luminus) _may_ provide some better alternatives here, but it'll still be limited with exactly how much it can help here. But I think it's still much too early to say one way or the other with Kit, so who knows.
(Also thanks for sharing your Ruby/Rails perspective on REPLs. A colleague of mine made some similar comments to me when we were discussing REPLs a while back, and I've not spent any time with Ruby so couldn't comment. It's interesting to hear! Most other REPLs I've used outside Clojure were not too useful as anything other than quick toys for trying short snippets outside of the context of a full project.)
That is a slightly shallow take though because its not really symmetrical like that. You can use a REPL as a way to arrive at the most easily understood rendition of something. But that is very prone to subjective bias as lots of things seem obvious in retrospect that are not at the start.
To the extent that the answer you eventually arrived at is a result of learning a mental model of the data and functions surround it, it will leave a significant residual gap for the next person who comes a long to bridge.
When using the REPL you can quickly experiment until it does what you want, but you need the discipline to distill something maintainable from it afterwards.
For a maintenance provrammer against learning anything, abstract and compact are always bad.
Typically though, if you understand a few core concepts abstract and compact can be more readable towards the end goal of a high level understanding.
- Azure
- SQL Server
- All the Windows UI frameworks
- Office development
- Windows debugging
- etc...
In other words, it's not about hiring a "Clojure developer", it's about hiring a good developer.
I'd call it a bare minimum type system, not "decent"
Records, pattern matching, string templates, and more to come for Java for which the other two have nothing equivalent.
I feel like you've never looked at C's tooling.
Admittedly, some of it is stuff you just don't need in Java, but things like Valgrind are crazy impressive.
For debugging and observability, tell me if C (or any other platform) has anything resembling JFR for the JVM.
I wish that would be true. Would make my current job a lot easier.
So of course that is interesting, probably says some important things, and moves the average salaries up as well. Everything points to "Clojure tends to attract some subset of better devs" rather than it making them better.
There are clearly also effects from the small pool of available candidates, the high output of experienced Clojure devs, etc but generally being in a smaller ecosystem doesn't drive prices up.
I have used Clojure before very lightly but I didn't really use the REPL in this way. I rather used it the same way I use it for javascript, python or any other language.
And Clojure isn't misused more than anything else. In fact, I've got a feeling it's less so.
The difference is just that you can scapegoat it, and people will believe you.
You can't blame Java for the failure of your project, cause everybody knows Java has worked fine for so many other teams, but nobody knows Clojure, so you can blame it for all your failures and people gives you the benefit of the doubt.
When you have a bad code base, and it's Java, people blame the people who wrote the code. When you have a bad code base and it's Clojure, people blame Clojure. Go figure!
I have mentioned a few times in the past, on HN and Reddit and elsewhere, that my biggest personal dream language wishlist item is “Clojure but with static types”, however, while that’s something I dream of having, it hasn’t held me or the language back in any meaningful way. The thing that makes Clojure less mess-inducing in my opinion is largely the fact that it’s data is immutable by default. An immutable-Python would be something I’d be interested in trying.
Sadly, Rich Hickey has always been pretty opposed to typing in Clojure. Enforcing values to be not null is basically table stakes for typed systems, and yet he doesn’t seem to think it’s valuable or feasible,
https://github.com/matthiasn/talk-transcripts/blob/master/Hi...
It does make me sad every time I have to deal with macro systems in non Lisp languages (Julia, Scala).
I mostly use Spring because it's pretty widespread and I figure - why fight the current. But I still think the benefit is minor for most projects. And the existence of Spring Boot makes me chuckle a bit.
Though that doesn’t mean they’ll be more productive, and then adds hiring challenges. So the break-even is not simple.
One of pg’s early essays was on exactly that subject (“the python paradox).
The code is all Scala, but written by a bunch of ex-Java devs. I have made attempts at education, and the code is improving, but the fundamental structure of the services are bad, and there is still a lot of bad code. I am not saying this as a FP purist, some of the code would be bad by the standards of Java programming.
Bad programmers then hire other bad programmers. Because it is hard to find experienced Scala developers, they have brought in people with java experience, or big data Python programmers who claim to have some experience using Scala with Spark. I am now involved in the hiring process, and it is slow and dismal. To be fair, the kind of contractors this company hires are mediocre, regardless of language.
The features of Scala create novel ways for confused programmers to screw up, and we aren't even doing anything esoteric, like pure FP. I suspect there are some similar traps in Clojure.
When it was released, there were two camps to adopt it: people that wanted an FP, and people that wanted a better Java. Since Java went through a long period of stagnation, most of the Scala code out there is written by Java developers that just wanted a better Java.
Kotlin has stepped in and replaced Scala for "better Java" role. But this history has left a pile of crap code written by people who didn't want to use Scala.
Clojure doesn't have this problem because you couldn't ever use it as just a better version of Java.
However I wouldn't mind coding in Scala. I like OO, I like FP, I'm comfortable with expression based programming and immutability. Based on that alone - and playing with Scala in my spare time - I feel like someone with my background may be more suited than someone with a commercial Java "mutate every variable" background.
But I'd never get through your filters.
I’ve been happily coding (and hiring) in Python for the last four years or so. Still doing Rust and some Scala at home where deadlines don’t exist and hiring is a non-issue.
True. But if you have a good well-enforced, sane style guide, then expressive powerful languages can be a good thing. If you hire devs who care more about playing with the language than delivering value then you're hiring the wrong people. You can't ditch these languages because some people are sometimes attracted to them for the wrong reasons.
However, there were negatives. At the time the Clojure library landscape was less mature. Clojure developers would also tend to abandon projects to create "the next best version" which made migrating and keeping up with the libraries of the day difficult. Most of the libraries were very rough around the edges too. On the other hand we could use any Java library which was a boon.
As the team grew, it became harder and harder to hire people in larger numbers. Especially in a single timezone. Also it became apparent that many of the people who were very happy in the early days, were increasingly less happy as we added standardization and protocol to our dev process. As some commenters pointed out many of the people attracted to Clojure liked playing with the latest and greatest, and things were "boring" when they couldn't work with whatever the latest fast changing trend in the community was. Trying to teach people Clojure also an issue. For some it was challenging, and for others, they were not really interested in using it.
It was a good learning experience, but I don't think I'd do it again. There is something to be said for using "boring" technology for the majority of your tech stack.
Esoteric languages by-nature have smaller populations of devs. They demand higher salaries for their specialist work. This can hurt you as you scale - salaries continue to increase (secularly), and the pool of possible engineers begins to shrink within your locale.
As an example, nobody knows Go when we hire them to write it.
Hopefully WFH helps there. In my niche Scala it does. We can hire more broadly. We also hire ppl with an aptitude for Scala and keep our style simple. That helps.
* Can represent sets `#{1 2 3 4 "foo" "bar" true false}` (JSON only supports arrays)
* Maps/sets can contain arbitrary EDN as keys/values. `{[1 2] "foo", 5 :a, "5" :b, true -1, false 5}` or `#{[1 2] #{3 4} (5 6)}` (JSON only supports string keys on "objects")
* Supports clojure types like keywords (`:foo`, `:bar/baz`) and symbols (`foo`, `bar/baz`), and can be extended to support other values as well
2. JS has Map/Set which allow other composite types as keys and can be converted to objects for JSON serialization then deserialize back to Map/Set.
[
["key", "value"],
["otherKey", "otherValue"]
]
[
{"key": "key", "value": "value"},
{"key": "otherKey", "value":"otherValue"}
] [
["key", "value"],
["otherKey", "otherValue"]
]
[
["otherKey", "otherValue"],
["key", "value"]
] Quite a lot easier when this is just native to the format.
Because Clojure is better designed. As are many other languages.
Nodejs competes with Java in single threaded performance, I'll say normal JS code is faster than normal Java code. For web services that are IO bound, nodejs still competes with Java unless you go with all the batshit crazy complex reactive stuff in the Java world, supposedly is going to get better with the new green threads implementation.
Also, no JS code will be faster than Java. While both have insanely good JIT compilers that can output some truly, often surprisingly great machine code, java is all-around faster, if for no other reason, due to its killer GCs.
C++ isn't even a platform, period. It provides no runtime or anything else other than the language. If you build on top of the JVM ecosystem, similar to NET you get a cross platform, extremely performant ecosystem with millions if not billions invested into it basically for free.
And of course you can build a billion dollar company on a crappy tech stack, but if you had built it on a good one you'd still be a billion dollar company and be even better off. What a strange argument, you ought to make the best technical choice you can, it's a core part of anything you built. And getting a 10x performance on the JVM vs say Python, or smooth, non error prone concurrency in Clojure is a significant benefit.
In particular in business applications were you usually deal with data transformations, the single-threaded, mutable state type of design of some languages is awful. Clojure in particular was exactly made for this practical use case.
As for JSON, others have replied, but my point was perhaps not very well made. It's not just the limitations of JSON itself. By using the same language on both sides, I can avoid adapting to the limitations of any transit format. In other words, I can (pretty much) pass native data structures through and get them out on the other side. In my case, that means not just maps and vectors, but also sets, keywords, or UUIDs. Can this be done with JSON? Sure! But then I'd have an entirely new bug area to deal with (encoding/decoding, forgetting to coerce, etc).