Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It means installing a big runtime they aren't familiar with, and getting their feet wet with a huge ecosystem which spans from weird stacktraces to the standard libraries and beyond, and is associated (somehow wrongly) with boring code and old enterprise solutions.


The almost exact same could be said for Ruby and frankly, any other programming language which has stacktraces and a standard library.


Clojure stack traces are usually long and somewhat leaky, they are hard to read without (and sometimes even with) preexisting knowledge about Java / JVM / Clojure implementation details.

https://ioavisopretty.readthedocs.io/en/v0.1.34/exceptions.h...

https://lispcast.com/clojure-error-messages-accidental/


Clojure error messages are on slate for improvement in 1.10, though: https://mobile.twitter.com/puredanger/status/102810365424144...


On the other hand, with some Java/JVM knowledge, they are very helpful. Whenever I come across supposedly nice error messages in most other languages, I'm convinced more and more that stacktraces are one of the right ways to do it...


Platform details are eventually going to leak, regardless of which one gets targeted.


Actually that is not true, Ruby stack traces are beautiful. Recently i saw a feature called "Did you Mean?" Have you ever seen such a stack trace in any other language? Clojures Stack traces are unreadable. My strategy with clojure debugging is usually commenting code and println thats how bad stack traces are in clojure but the thing is Clojure as a language is very thoughtful and thought provoking much more than any scheme i have seen. And certainly more enjoyable to code in than Ruby.


Folks at-least comment with a good reason before giving negative points for a comment. It helps clarify how the message was received a negative point without a comment is quite pointless and banal.




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

Search: