Six years of professional Clojure development10.05.2021 Permalink
Over the last couple of years me and my colleagues here at doctronic have been busy creating and maintaining more than a dozen of individual software systems for our clients.
We have the privilege to almost exclusively use Clojure and ClojureScript, as this is still the valid strategic technology decision made by doctronic shortly before I joined them in 2015. In this post I'd like to list some of the strengths and weaknesses in everyday real-life use of the language and its ecosystem.
Stability of the language and libraries: Anyone who ever created software of practical value for paying customers knows that reliability of core language constructs and libraries is important. It supports predictability, and eventually saves you from insanity whenever you want to benefit from performance improvements or bug fixes. Upgrading to a new version of a library or even Clojure itself is risk-free. The authors and maintainers really do care about stability. If you listened to talks of Rich Hickey or Stuart Halloway you know that this is no coincidence. "Don't break things!" is part of the culture.
Code size: If you compare some of the idiomatic code snippets in Clojure with the equivalents in more popular languages you might conject that whole Clojure code bases might in general be smaller compared to what you can achieve in other languages. Now, after having worked more than 20 years with imperative OO languages and more than 5 years with Clojure I can firmly state that you'll achieve the same functionality with a fraction of the amount of code. This impacts costs: My feeling is that we now build systems with only half of the staff that I used to have on projects with a comparable scope.
Finding staff: Clojure's popularity is still far, far behind imperative general purpose languages like Java or Python, so fewer people feel encouraged to invest the time to learn the concepts and gain practice. It seems that this makes hiring harder. doctronic addressed this challenge by positioning itself as a supporter of the language in Germany through organizing and sponsoring the annual :clojureD conference. This helps greatly with staffing. But even if a company has a lower visibility, the fact that it uses Clojure will attract aficionados of advanced programming languages. If these developers do enjoy their workplace they will usually stay around longer with their employer. So I'd argue that you gain quality in skills and a lower turnover rate, but it might take more patience to build up a team of Clojure developers.
Teaching the language to apprentices: doctronic constantly employs apprentices so I was able to accompany some of them and help them learn Clojure. Young minds with very few programming experience are remarkably fast in picking up the language and become productive, it seems. I assume there are two main reasons for this: There's actually a whole lot of things they don't need to master compared to OO land. And they don't need to unlearn anything, in other words, they don't need to overcome old habits of doing things.
Some discipline required: Clojure is a language that gives us a wide range of options to implement solutions. And it imposes very little ceremony. For example, there is no static type system that checks your code upon compilation, but you can get some of the benefits for your data at runtime by using Clojure spec. This also serves as documentation and possibly a generator for test data. It is up to the team to decide when and where more checks, restrictions and tests have to be added. If the team misses out on this the code base might be harder to understand and maintain than necessary. In essence: with great freedom comes great responsibility.
Navigating the code: When maintaining or extending an existing code base you often need to find specific places where a function or a piece of data is referenced. To support this kind of search for specific identifiers it is important that naming is self-explaining and consistent, even more so because there are no links established via a type system. To mitigate this weakness in Clojure, you should use qualified keywords whereever possible.
Documentation becomes more important: When you're trying to understand a function that invokes other, non-core functions you'll need a clear idea what kind of data these functions expect and return. Without any data type declarations the code itself often doesn't reveal how the data that flows through you functions looks like. You'll need either Clojure spec or more thorough documentation to mitigate this problem. It is not so rare that you need to test functions of interest isolated in the REPL to get a clear idea how the data looks like.
The promise of purity: Any practical software application must cause some side-effects. So even if Clojure strongly encourages developers to create pure functions your systems will contain substantial parts that either depend on some environment or cause side-effects. The trick is to separate these pieces sharply and keep the unpure parts small. Without any discipline you could easily spread side-effects everywhere and end up with the typical imperative mess. Clojure makes it easy to create a mostly pure implementation but it does not enforce this. To ensure this and other qualities the teams at doctronic conduct code reviews for almost every commit before it is promoted into the master branch.
Reusability: Here's where Clojure really shines. Because most functions are pure and operate on few common data structures (mostly maps, vectors and sets) it is very easy to write reusable code. We created many internal libraries just by separating the candidate functions into their own namespaces within the regular project source tree. To finally establish the library we move the code from the project repo into a new Git repo and include the resulting library Jar in the project.clj as dependency. Thus, we have a very lean process that results in production-quality reusable assets.
Startup time: Starting a fresh JVM with a Clojure Uber-Jar to bring up an application takes noticable time. I assume that JVM class loading causes this delay. So if you consider to create a command line tool that has a short net execution time you wouldn't want this runtime overhead.
Runtime stability: Clojure applications are in general very stable. I remember that in bigger Java projects from my past we always had to do some load testing in order to detect programming flaws like memory leaks or race conditions. With Clojure, we do load testing only to find real performance issues.
Ok, time to come to an end before this post becomes too long. The list is perhaps not complete, but I guess I included the most important aspects that recently popped into my mind. When I decided to fully jump on this train in 2015 I expected more unpleasant surprises. Now, six years later I have proven to myself that Clojure and ClojureScript are a practical and sound choice for real world software development, and I still enjoy using them.