So you're saying because I've run into these bugs in my own code, I clearly don't know what I'm doing and I should be using a language for someone of my intelligence?
Telling people that they're not doing a good job when you don't even know them only pisses people off, and eliminates any chance that they'll agree with you on principle.
I was hoping highlighting that would make you realize that all you were saying to me was that I'm not doing a good job, but you didn't seem to get it. Each time I summarized what you said before, you changed your story to make it sound less bad.
Ultimately I don't really care that much, this is the Internet and I don't have to interact with you after this. But I'd recommend not doing that to people IRL, they'll resent you.
Funny, that's exactly what the original poster did to the Clojure core team.
> Each time I summarized
You call it summarizing, I call it mischaracterizing. I stand by the position that if the original poster thinks that clojure.set is bugged: they don't know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean they suck at their job, that means they haven't actually stopped to think about the particularities of those functions.
Have we all forgotten the principle "make the minimum amount of WTFs per minute" already?
Why is everybody so content with their technology and so quick to look down upon people who aren't familiar with the traps in it? Is it really so wrong for your technology to be easy and painless not only at the entry level, but all the way to middle-high level of professionalism?
No, that would be _wonderful_. Unfortunately, "easy" is only one dimension along which we must make tradeoffs. Clojure has chosen one point in the design space for input validation vs performance. You're free to have a different preference.
As a relatively mature man and a programmer for me the way a project is maintained is just as important as the ability of the technology itself.
This post helped me make a conscious decision to not work with Clojure. If I am gonna learn a new language and technologies I prefer the least possible amount of surprises, because when I inevitably stumble upon them I'll be shamed as "not active enough to research beforehand".
Yes. In fact, this is partly what clojure.spec is about; which the original author calls out as being wrong to prioritize for some unknown reason.
I have zero idea if that's the case, though. I'd be glad to work with a technology if I had a polite and constructive person such as yourself to help me out when I am really stuck.
just a heads up.
For context, these arguments made by the original poster have been around for _years_ in the Clojure community and, frankly, those of us who have also been around for years are tired of hearing the same old complaints. It's particularly annoying because: the core team has made multiple announcements in past days/weeks about improvements to exactly what he's complaining about!