Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | netbioserror's commentslogin

Clojure might be the least esoteric language ever. Call a function, get a value.

It definitely is more "mainstream" than others but I just don't see the same level of attention and enthusiasm around it anymore. I'm sure it is still being used in many places but like Elixir, hiring remains on the tough end.

Hiring good talent was always problematic. This has nothing to do with the quality, capacity, and robustness of the language or its relevance. Hiring people who would love to use Clojure but have no prior experience is not that difficult - it's just that every company wants an expert, but they don't want to offer expert salaries. In places where they do, the competition is nuts, on top of that, experienced Clojuristas typically get interviewed and scrutinized with the same level of rigor as architects.

The industry should have optimized for hiring people interested in PLs like Clojure instead of LeetCode drillers. Clojure is rarely the first, second, or even third programming language people choose to learn. It demands a specific vision, dedication, and discipline that fundamentally transforms how people think about computation, data flow, distributed systems, and concurrency. The ROI from hiring an average developer experienced in Clojure has the potential to significantly exceed that of a typical hire. Even when there's zero Clojure in prod.


I've had Clojure on my resume for 10 years, mainly to see if anyone would ask about it. Nobody ever has, until an interview a couple days ago. We'll see if it actually helps in leading to an offer, I guess.

I have the opposite experience - been using Clojure for over a decade and it feels like only that mattered for the last five jobs. Even though it's really only just one of many layers that required to do the job. I honestly would love to find a non-clj team and convince them to use it. There are so many useful scripts we write in babaska alone, it just sounds wasteful not to use that path, fully knowing of its existence.

Can you talk more about those scripts, what are you using it for?

Imagine what you'd use random shell scripts, Makefile/Justfile or whatever "scripts" the language offers, if any, but written in Clojure instead, run with Babashka.

Anything that we previously used Bash or Python for - any complex task delegation from GHA; utility scripts for setting up proper ssh tunneling for various k8s clusters; there's pretty complex CLI tool we build for testing our services in ephemeral SDEs running our pods.

Personally: all my MCPs are written in Clojure - https://github.com/agzam/death-contraptions; I write small web-scraping scripts and automations in nbb with Playwright. The flexibility of starting the REPL and figuring out the rest of it dynamically, while poking through DOM elements directly from the editor is some blackmagicfuckery that should be outlawed. Imagine being able to control the state of the web browser while typing some incantations in your editor, without much ceremony, without some crazy scaffolding, without "frameworks", without even having to save the code into a file. You gotta be some ignorant fool who doesn't know this was at all possible or a complete idiot to say "meh, but all these parentheses". You gotta be kidding me. It's like if someone gave you a magic car attachment that makes it run for 800 miles on a single charge and you'd say: "meh, I don't like the color of it"...


I think this would be a great candidate for some short video clips to illustrate the power of CLJ / CLJS.

As per our other thread... what can be done to increase adoption.


If you use Nim, it's value semantics by default. Everything (and I do mean everything, all types primitive to composite) is managed by the stack, including stuff that needs to hold a heap pointer. All lifetimes are scoped. You only get ref counted types when you opt in.

It's astoundingly easy to build software with that behavior set. Even if the occasional copy is necessary, you're paying a far lower cost for it than for an interpreted language. Slice off a couple important components into stateless executables built like this, and it's clean sailing.


My prolific Typst use, along with quickly improving side-by-side editors like Typesetter, are rapidly diminishing (in my eyes) the reasons for WYSIWYG to be. Sure, normies need it, yadda yadda. Is it worth the staggering cost? The file format and GUI complexity?

> Is it worth the staggering cost? The file format and GUI complexity?

I was kind of also wondering something like this as I read about different countries switching to linux, and them needing overly complex office software because they are entrenched in the thinking that that need Microsoft office.

Why do you NEED an office clone, what is it in your job that requires anything more than simple text and formatting that something like markdown provides.

I always envy people that can use computers as tools (like scientists/math people) and not fancy distraction devices. Those people, from what I see, don't care about the os, what it looks like, etc... they just want to use the computer as a tool to help them solve problems.

on a third tangent from the point, once I was given a PDF of data to process (instead of just the csv) , because people don't understand computer formats, and try to use things that they think make them look "professional"


I really wish the FreeCiv team would focus on their SDL build instead of all these fiddly and very fickle UI toolkits. They have an incredibly cool hex-based hybridized Civ 2/3 ruleset that might be the best of all worlds, IF it could actually start consistently on all systems. Drop GTK and Qt, clean it up, add some modern quality of life keybinds and UI info, make it the universal target.


Speaking from personal experience, Godot has the sneakiest potential. It has all the UI components and flexible layout containers you could ask for, a signaling system that lets you put the methods from less relevant components in the scripts for more relevant ones (making for a more compact project), and you can also manually compile slim template builds for cleaner distribution. There's a future there.


There are already tools made in Godot, including the godot editor itself. This page has some of them: https://gamefromscratch.com/godot-developed-non-game-applica...


What’s the story for accessibility and non-LTR text boxes?


The greatest failing of modernity is its refusal to accept an uncomfortable reality uncovered by biology and psychology: That certain strongly negative personality traits are built-in pathologies which nature tries out to explore what is possible. The neural pattern that is "Trevor Milton" is not him without those intensely compulsive lying behaviors.

The social taboos of cultures around the world are fighting a ceaseless battle to reign in these endemic outliers.


This resonates as true, as long as the fundamentals of your tools are there. Picking interpreted languages or browsers as targets shoots you in the foot and sets you magnitudes behind when performance starts to matter. But if you're using a native-compiled language with value- and move-semantics, immutable data, and a composable type system, it's shocking how easy it can be to write obvious, maintainable, fast programs that perform under pressure, even when you're not being clever.

Thankfully newer languages like Nim, Odin, and Swift lean hard into value semantics. They drastically reduce the cost of focusing on data structures and writing obvious algorithms. Then, when bottlenecks appear, you can choose to opt into fine-tuning.


More generally: LLM effectiveness is inversely proportional to domain specificity. They are very good at producing the average, but completely stumble at the tails. Highly particular brownfield optimization falls into the tails.


Side-by-side, it's incredibly clear that the newest version is total UX garbage. Monochrome icons were a complete mistake, in basically all cases everywhere. A mix of the Lion color, shape/texture, and spacing, plus the Catalina sidebar, would be the best.

I really REALLY love the Lion icons. Colorful but subdued with only mild saturation, distinctive shapes, strong line borders with very slight halo, and mild gradients to make them pop.


I've recently made a dozen vastly different projects with Typst, ALL of which would have created dependency hell, syntax noise, and hours of extra pointless work in Latex. It's such a clear win at this point it's embarrassing.


reminds me of when LyX became trendy with a small group of optimists.


I mean, LyX has met my needs since 2019 - I don't particularly need to be optimistic about it. I was even able to bring in parts of my old LaTeX preamble with me, especially some utility macros. It was a pretty painless switch with immediate benefit.

(I've done everything in it from write honors theses and format CVs.)

I've been interested in Typst. But beyond report generation (which I avoid in general), I don't really have a general "document processing" tool, but multiple specialized ones, and given Typst's current jack of all trades/master of none status, I'm not sure what it'll replace. I use Quarto for a lot of my statistical computing, LyX if I need to do a lot of finicky math typesetting (e.g. if I need to break out \qquad), and Word - god forbid - for my non-technical collaborators.


LyX is pretty great. It has an equation editor that actually works very well - once you learn it it's much nicer than typing in the raw LaTeX.

If I had to use LaTeX, I'd definitely do it via LyX.


LyX is cool but it was still just on top of TeX. typst is much more fundamental.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: