But really, i wish i hadn’t hit enter and i wish i could delete my comment because OP’s comment isn’t a good entry point to discussion anything.

Meanwhile in the java world you have: Gradle, Maven, Ant, etc...

> And Clojure CLI tools also seem like a total shitshow compared to go or rust’s tooling.

Wat

> Spec seems kind of weird and not well thought out either.

WAT?

If Pytyon has 100 jobs and 100 people then the ratio is 1 If Clojure has 10 jobs and 5 people then the ration is 2 and Clojure has a healthier market for you then python.

That's why we have a wide range of programming languages at different levels, and why it's common for people to say "high level" or "low level" languages.

It's unclear to me what your suggesting, or what question your asking really.

I wrote a bit about this problem from the perspective of a clojure and clojurescript developer on my blog. https://drewverlee.github.io/posts-output/2021-8-26-css-opti...

The reason, clojure and clojurescript is relevant is those programming languages can easily compile to css, allowing users to easily add pl features that don't exist in css and not force devs to learn the same concepts twice. It can do this becuase as a lisp, turning clojure native hashmaps into classes (or attributes if you prefer) is like pouring water into a container. We numerous libs to do this in the clojure ecosystem, here is a reddit discussion around the newest one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/w56tg8/shadowcss_c...

Though i would personally opt for the slower page perf and faster dev performance of just using cljs compiled to inline-styles solution, as i suggest in my blog.

Of course there might be performance benefits to coding at the lower css level directly, but on average that's not a good tradeoff for most teams i have worked on. s

if you need to build things that build the building blocks of lists it's not a good fit.

https://github.com/quoll/asami

I'm asking how haskell encourages people to use composable well understood abstractions and data structures?

Clojure does this by putting them into the syntax itself as primates E.g ([] () #{} {}) see? the list () contains a list of things, one of which itself is a list. This cuts away the translation barrier, i don't have to label the ocean as wet if your in it.

In this way all clojure developers are lead to think and talk to the machine the same way, this unifies how all Clojure programmers often choose to express intent.

It's at the heart of what Rich wanted for the language, making simple easy. Or as i see it know, making simple useful structures so easy to reach for, your discouraged, before you know better, to do something else. That's why i view clojure as more constrained then haskell, because I'm not sure haskell has that level of built in encouragement in it's design. I think the authors were interested in what could be, as where rich has taken a much narrow stance on how to deliver high level programs.

haskell might certainly lead to less nil pointer expections, but that doesn't even mean the faulty logic is easier to resolve right?

what I'm saying is, no one pays to avoid nil pointer expections. if they did, i would simply right no code and call it a day.

the question is, does a language let you express your intent accurately. imo, this is what clojure gets right, because it helps me talk to the machine in the machines terms: datastructures.

clojure makes using well understood types easy by putting them into the snytax. it wires it into your brain.

my worry is, and hear this on every level, haskell is too open ended, people will choose to reinvent lists and sets and hashmaps making it harder and harder to understand how anything can compose together.

e.g https://github.com/cognitect-labs/aws-api

typescript, coffeescript, scala, kotlin, etc...