edge VS clojure-news-feed

I totally respect that, and Clojure could invest more in offering frameworks or even no-code platforms or such features, but the truth is it doesn't. The language very much targets the software/information engineer category in my opinion, where by that I mean, the people who are interested in not just the functional requirements, but also the non-functional requirements of performance, scale, architectural runway, future extensibility, operations, maintainability, correctness, re-usability, etc. Especially, Clojure targets those who believe a balance between all these and functional requirements is the holy grail. That's why it won't be the most correct, the most performant, the most productive, but a pragmatic balance of all these in almost equal parts.

Maybe it should also embrace the people looking to get a product out by simply using a framework, and I'd say there's more of that in Clojure today than ever before, but the community I think is more composed of the former people that I describe, which is why you don't see any attempted framework take hold in the community, because most current members are not in the group that "just want to build the product using an established framework".

I think the community has settled, ounce again, on a bit of a balanced approach, Kit (https://github.com/kit-clj/kit) and Edge (https://github.com/juxt/edge) are such hybrids. And some more direct viable frameworks have come along like Biff (https://biffweb.com/) and Fulcro (https://fulcro.fulcrologic.com/).

That said, since the community is more composed of people like me, you don't see a mass move of every Clojurian switching to one of those.

So it creates some questions?

1. Is it a problem that the language targets engineers more interested in a balance between non-functional and functional?

2. Should it be mutually exclusive, or can Clojure equally serve both niche? And if so, should it, why?

3. Is the claim that you can be as productive and it is just as easy to build a product without using a framework in Clojure true? Does this apply to everyone, or only certain personalities or people with certain amount of lower level knowledge?

4. Is Clojure's marketing misleading? Are people looking to just "build the product using an established framework" mislead in thinking Clojure will offer them salvation?

5. Where do most developer fall in, if they don't fall in the category Clojure currently targets, than does that mean Clojure cannot become mainstream? To go mainstream does it mean you have to target frameworks because there are more developers looking to just make a product using a framework?

I don't have answers to these, I'm just trying to define the current state and what the problem with it might be, or if it even is a problem.

Your question is interesting to me. As a software architect, I study various tech stacks and programming languages. I concentrate mostly on open source and microservice architectures. I usually start with implementing the same feature identical rudimentary news feed microservice. Over time you start to see the similarities and differences between the various implementations. I blog about this over at https://glennengstrand.info and the source code can be found in https://github.com/gengstrand/clojure-news-feed

You are looking for a decision on what programming language and tech stack to learn next based on career mobility. Here are some questions to consider.

What kind of company are you most interested in working for? Think about the size of the company. Is it in a growth market or is profitability more important? Is it a technology company? Does the CEO view technology as a profit center or a cost center? Do they have a CTO? If they do, then who does the CTO report to, the CEO, the CIO, or the COO?

What kinds of programming languages and tech stacks are on the career pages for the kinds of companies that you are most interested in? Different kinds of companies tend to cluster around different tech stacks. There are other factors to filter for such as how deeply do they embrace remote work or commute distance to where you currently live or are willing to move to.

These are lagging indicators. They are going to be more accurate than leading indicators but that also might indicate that whatever you learn next based on these factors might have a shorter shelf life.

Finally, you should ask yourself what about your current programming language do you like? Try to pick something that you would also like. The Go programming language was originally invented as a better C and is enjoying some marketability right now. Maybe that would be something to look at.

I have a github repo where I implement a feature identical microservice in various tech stacks. I started that repo with a Clojure version that used community provided wrappers. See https://github.com/gengstrand/clojure-news-feed/blob/master/... as an example of calling Cassandra. Recently, I added another implementation with Clojure that just called the Java drivers directly. See https://github.com/gengstrand/clojure-news-feed/blob/master/... for that version of the same call. In the end, I decided to forego wrappers and make the calls directly because you end up with fewer dependencies and are more likely to be able to use latest versions of everything.

I have been exposed to many different tech stacks over the years. This https://github.com/gengstrand/clojure-news-feed repo contains the code used to evaluate thirteen different stacks which is what I can share publicly. What I can say is that the best choice of tech stack depends on what is being called for. Is this for an early stage startup or an intrepreneurial greenfield project? Is this for an MVP or just the next component in an already formalized microservice architecture? What are the skillsets of the developers that you will have access to? Have you reached agreement that you can throw it all away and start over or are you expected to have to live with the choice of tech stack for the life of the product? Are you mobile first? These are all important questions that very much shape the decision.