edge VS malli

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.

Clojure's lazy sequences by default are wonderful ergonomically, but it provides many ways to use strict evaluation if you want to. They aren't really a hassle either. I've been doing Clojure for the last few years and have a few grievances, but overall it's the most coherent, well thought out language I've used and I can't recommend it enough.

There is the issue of startup time with the JVM, but you can also do AOT compilation now so that really isn't a problem. Here are some other cool projects to look at if you're interested:

Malli: https://github.com/metosin/malli

Babashka: https://github.com/babashka/babashka

Clerk: https://github.com/nextjournal/clerk

BREAKING: walking a :schema passes children instead of [id] to the walker function #884

When you get to larger, more complex validations, I'd recommend checking out Malli or Spec.

for specs, you can try malli - feels pretty well supported and full featured: https://github.com/metosin/malli (i'm not 100% sure how popular it is for others, but I use it on my personal projects)

Have you tried malli: Data-driven Schemas for Clojure/Script?

All that being said, I particularly use malli and I don't find anything to complain about. There is a very nice and sound ecosystem being built around it (malli-ts is one of my contributions to it, but still in early development stages). I highly recommend reading its README, very informative stuff.

Any large codebase can be broken up into small isolated components that can be reasoned about independently. This is how you structure Clojure projects if you want them to be maintainable. Clojure inherently encourages doing this by defaulting to immutability. The contract between components is the data being passed to the component and returned by it. Using Malli schemas at the edges of the components is a typical approach to documenting their APIs https://github.com/metosin/malli

I see the fact that people often end up creating large and tightly coupled monolithic codebases in static languages as a negative aspect of static typing. Such codebases are difficult to reason about even if you have guarantees that the types align. Ultimately, you need to understand the relationships in code, and how they relate to business logic. The more coupling an application has the harder it becomes to reason about it as a whole.

Ideally, I think applications should be structured as a bunch of Lego blocks that can be composed together. Each component should encapsulate some functionality, and then the flow of the business logic should bubble up to the top and expressed in how these components are chained together.

Uhhh spec has existed for a long time and before that, schema Nowadays we also have the excellent malli. If his codebase is full of functions where the shape of the data isn’t obvious, isn’t documented and isn’t specified in a specific/schema, that’s on him and his bad coding practices and really no different from passing data in other dynamic languages. A class by itself (without additional effort) only gives you field names.