timbre VS malli

There are logging libraries that include syntactically scoped timers, such as mulog (https://github.com/BrunoBonacci/mulog). While a great library, we preferred timbre (https://github.com/taoensso/timbre) and rolled our own logging timer macro that interoperates with it. More convenient to have such niceties in a Lisp of course.

Mentioning μ/log and no mention of timbre (https://github.com/taoensso/timbre), that is an odd omission. Malli is a great mention, but there ought to be a mention of clojure.spec (https://github.com/clojure/spec.alpha) which has much more mindshare.

If you're not familiar with lisps in general, it might be hard to grok the differences between lisp-macros (as used in Clojure) and "normal" macros you see in other languages.

But, if you are familiar already, and just wanna see examples of neat macros that makes the API nicer than what a function could provide, here are a few:

- https://github.com/clojure/core.async/blob/master/examples/w...

- https://github.com/weavejester/compojure

- https://github.com/ptaoussanis/timbre

- https://github.com/krisajenkins/yesql

When clj is invoked, two libraries will be available in our code: timbre logging library which artifacts taken from Maven, and test-runner, taken from GitHub.

No, I don't think they were hyped at any point.

They are used in certain libraries like https://github.com/ptaoussanis/timbre but for things that are simply not possible without macros, for example (timbre/spy (+ 1 1)) will actually print both the expression and the result:

DEBUG [ss.experimental.scratch:1] - (+ 1 1) => 2

Perhaps if the macros are "simple" they can be unpacked relatively easily. I do understand how mentally challenging that can be for somebody who's just starting with Clojure. I've been using Clojure for ~8 years and only just recently became more comfortable with macros after I made a conscious effort in that direction. I'm still far from an "expert" in them.

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.