A few weeks ago Cognitect ran the annual State of Clojure Survey, and presented the results, shortly followed by the analysis. While they did a great job on presenting and analyzing the choice answers, text responses were largely dismissed. Each year text responses contain the most information about which features users lack, or what are their biggest gripes with the language; so to avoid the survey being just another reason to feel good about Clojure, these should be analyzed too. It is easy to overlook a problem people are having if it is stated in stone-cold percentage. The other thing is when you read the sincere words of real people.
I understand that manual digging through 2000 textual responses is a hard and thankless job, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. I've spent the whole day, I've read them all, and boy oh boy do I have some information for you.
NB: I've processed only answers related to Clojure, as I'm not into ClojureScript yet. If you want to do the same for CLJS, be my guest. Especially since CLJS has fewer answers.
NB: Great thanks to Alex Miller and Justin Gehtland for running the survey and providing the results.
Name one language feature you would like to see added?
I will briefly comment on some of those when I've got anything to say.
Type checking - 81
Voted for twice more than for other contenders, type checking clearly interests many Clojure users. People enjoy core.typed and Prismatic/schema and want them in Core, extended, improved and nourished. While some respondents would prefer a strict type system, absolute most voted for optional one that wouldn't stand in the way.
Faster start-up - 46
Answers grouped under this category stated that they would like to see a special production build mode that would have leaner runtime, apply tree-shaking and omit the compiler. It is something similar to what projects Oxcart and Skummet are trying to solve. Respondents report that faster start-up would make it possible use Clojure on mobile platforms, in scripting and generally make the development more pleasant.
Better stacktraces - 41
A usual guest in annual survey results, it never gets old. It has been an issue for me at the beginning, before the Stockholm syndrome kicked in. Anyway, CIDER provides much better stacktraces, and does its best to hide the irrelevant parts. You should certainly try it if you still don't.
Feature expressions - 31
This became an issue right after ClojureScript had been released. Users want a way to unify libraries so that they are usable from both Clojure and CLJS. Tools like cljx might help, but they are still hackish compared to what can a native solution provide.
Debugger + other tools - 28
Other tools mentioned are mostly profiler and other IDE stuff (refactoring), but debugger is still #1. While several projects exist that bring debugger-like experience (I remember ritz being the one), anything like Eclipse/Visual Studio debuggers suited for Clojure is still missing.
New runtimes - 23
By new runtimes people mostly mean targeting native platform and LLVM. Erlang VM also occurs a few times.
Better namespaces - 23
Surprisingly enough, this is quite high in the list. Users want better namespaces: first-class, composable, immutable, parameterized. "Modules" are often mentioned as a substitute.
Advanced error-handling - 17
Apparently, basic Java try/catch approach can't satisfy everyone. People often mention Common Lisp's restarts as being an exemplary error-handling mechanism. Perhaps, Clojure can learn something from it. In the meantime, there is ribol.
What do you think is the most glaring weakness/problem?
OK, now to the bitter part. Since the second question allowed multiple answers, there were much more data points unlike in the previous case. Most respondents didn't try to soften their answers when they talked about problems, so reading the whole thing is quite depressing and off-putting. I welcome you to do it yourself, but for those who won't here's the report.
Stacktraces, debugging, tooling - 211
A whopping 211 answers mentioned some or all of those. Maybe it is not very fair to unite all three under the same flag, but that's what many respondents put together — awful error-reporting and hard debugging. Perhaps, if stacktraces were more informative, the need for debugger would be less urgent, and vice versa. This problem occupying the first place shows that while Clojure is all "simple", "easy" is what troubles regular users most.
A few years ago Rich explained that more informative error messages would
cut down performance, so there is a trade-off. But most macros (like
could be slightly more intelligent about wrong inputs without any
go macro is another one that gets complained about a
lot, its stacktraces being completely out of this world.
CIDER has been getting a bad churn lately for being unstable, and it is reflected in the answers. Recently Bozhidar performed a huge rewrite, adding new features along and making CIDER even more awesome. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a period of instability. I think the main problem here is Emacs packaging system which doesn't allow fixing package versions, and also the fact that CIDER and cider-nrepl middleware have to match. When anything goes wrong, people usually try to update both to the latest version, which might contain recently added and thus insufficiently tested features and all users become unwilling bleeding-edge testers. Regardless of what happens at the moment, you have to give Bozhidar credit for making CIDER what it is now, and what Swank/SLIME could never be. Just put up with CIDER a little until things settle down, and anyway Mr. Batsov is always rapid at answering issues on Github.
Startup time, memory consumption, performance - 170
Users would love to use Clojure more if it wasn't so slow and large. That's not news. As I've mentioned earlier, startup time (and memory consumption) can be solved by lean compilation, although some users want these characteristics for dev environemt (REPL-enabled) as well. A way to improve the performance is non-obvious, but native compilation might help.
Documentation issues, steep learning curve, bad official website - 141
There were different complaints about documentation, here's the list of the most common ones:
- Libraries are poorly documented. Inline/API docs is not enough documentation.
- There is a lack of tutorials and other prose documentation.
- Since the language moves forward very quickly, the existing tutorials become outdated.
- Learning curve is too steep, it is hard to find proper docs to get started. Also, related to shortage of IDEs.
- Best practices should be more apparent. People are lost in the sea of possibilities when they try to do something new and so powerful as Clojure, so they need to be told how to do it, at least at the start.
- clojure.org is simply bad. When it could serve as a tool for better adoption, pointing beginners in the right direction, serving the latest documentation, showcasing the best libraries it does virtually none of these.
While I personally can relate to some of these, some complaints are somewhat surficial. There are a lot of tutorials being written every day if you follow Planet Clojure, for instance. There are IDEs for beginners — like Nightcode and LightTable. API docs for Clojure itself are also present — on ClojureDocs or Grimoire, whichever you like more.
The problem with documentation here is that it is too distributed and doesn't have APPROVED stamp on top. Beginners want to just type Clojure in google, click on the first link in their browser and be streamlined through the whole process of learning basics, however one-sided that might be. Teach them first, let them decide later.
In his talk Design, Composition, and Performance (Oxford comma) Rich Hickey compares learning a technology to learning a musical instrument. Since one learns to play by hours of repetitive practicing, he argues, learning the technology doesn't have to be easy. While amusing, this analogy is dangerous. Music is art, programming is work, in art there is a certain added benefit from how difficult it is created, in the industry noone gets paid because his tool is unwieldy and takes 10 years to learn properly.
Batteries - 82
Again, couple of reported issues are grouped here:
- Some libraries are missing (data processing, machine learning etc.).
- Some libraries could be better.
- Libraries over frameworks approach doesn't work.
- Clojure could have a better standard lib (like clojure-contrib).
Users complain about the absence of frameworks a lot. The "composable libraries" solution makes sense, but only if you: a) know what every library does and should be doing; b) know enough to be able to prefer one library over another. People loathe frameworks because they make decisions for you, but apparently many developers still love them because otherwise you must make these decisions.
Same for the standard lib argument — there are plenty of libraries, but how do you know which one to use? Especially as you begin learning something, an authority that tells you what to do and what to use is beneficial.
Adoption, staffing, marketing - 76
As always, respondents express concerns about Clojure's limited adoption and difficulty to find employers/employers. Some directly complain about insufficient marketing of the language. People want an alluring facade, more success stories, killer apps, convincing arguments for adoption right on the front page. Some wish Clojure had an evangelist company like 37signals or Typesafe. Of course, Cognitect is a company like that, and Datomic qualifies as a killer-app, but their work could be more famous in the outerwebs so that pointy-haired bosses are easier to convince.
JVM, compiler in Java - 62
A sufficient number of people consider Clojure to be better off JVM. There
always have been some grief in the community for JVM being the host,
especially among those who haven't used Java before. The compiler still
being written in Java is another annoyance, and those who tried modifying
Compiler.java have a hard time sleeping at night.
Dogmatism - 27
This one is interesting. While finishing the list with relatively small number of complaints, it seems to be the primary gripe with Clojure community and Cognitect in particular. Respondents dislike the "non-open-source open-source" model of Clojure development, where one must sign a CA and go through hoops to submit a small patch. No one likes JIRA. No pull-request policy discourages contributing. While Leiningen is an absolute standard, Contrib projects continue to use Maven.
I can see where the dissatisfaction is coming from. Clojure isn't clearly designated on the "hipster"-enterprise scale. It has many qualities of the young language (lack of polish, limited ecosystem), but at the same time tries to be serious and enterprisy about the way it is developed. This spawns the confusion. People either put up with bugs and shortcomings if they feel they can directly fix this, or they eat what's given but then it should be good.
Here are some problems voiced by survey participants which weren't common enough to be measured quantitatively:
- Segmentation between Clojure and ClojureScript, lack of specification for different runtime implementors.
- "Arrogant" and "elitist" community.
- Focus on new features instead of fixing old known problems.
- Clojure evolution vector makes it feel more like an inside project of Cognitect which they decided to share with others, rather than a solid general-purpose language.
- It is unclear how to write and structure large systems in Clojure, given there are no best practices and examples of such systems.
- Stability has been a concern for a few people.
I haven't analyzed this section because it mostly contains praises. Some critique is also present, but it is hard to determine if it wasn't already accounted in the previous section. So I just selected some comments that summarize common sentiments and are well-stated.
I am personally getting kind of lost with the plethora of concurrency and asynchronous programming options now within the mainstream of Clojure. STM, reducers, transducers, core.async, libraries from ztellman and clojurewerkz, etc. This area of Clojure development feels very experimental. Sure would be great if someone really smart could boil it down for the rest of us.
Q: Name one language feature you would like to see added? A: Rich Hickey's hair.
Clojure community seems to celebrate highly esoteric projects and largely ignore the essentials: documentation, beginner friendliness, high quality libraries for "boring" problems. If Clojure is to get adopted more widely, this must change.
I worry about Clojure's dependence on the JVM, but then, I live in the SF Bay Area. Worrying about Larry Ellison's mental state is right up there with anxiety about earthquakes because there's no rational way of predicting either but the outcome is rarely favorable.
There are odd references to "things Rich is working on" (like fastload) in tickets, but the community has zero idea what to make of that. Why isn't he commenting himself? What significance does that work have? How come that branch isn't advertised on the dev list where community members can actually have a conversation about it? Again, this is indicative of a situation where development happens behind closed doors, where people talk in private, but barriers exist for those on the outside
Error messages in Clojure are so bad, I now have competent debugging skills.
I've been using Clojure for five years, but in the past year or two I've stopped using it for new development and only maintain the open source libraries I've written. […] I've come to realize that I don't like dynamically typed languages. Another part of it is that I don't know what kind of future it has. It's always been hard to get an idea of what is coming up in Clojure, when that development is happening, and so on. Stuff just appears suddenly one day, and it's usually not the thing that has been giving you a headache, but some interesting, half-academic new abstraction. It has in the past been hard to get attention for issues and submit improvements that aren't important to the key maintainers. I don't know if that's still the case, as I am much more peripherally in the community now, but that's hard to get over and feel enough confidence to build new things on it again.
I also feel like working in Clojure is to endure a constant stream of "you're doing it wrong" from the community at large. For instance, weavejester maintains the most sane library for doing database migrations and yet routinely calls database migrations an antipattern that "real programmers" don't need. Leiningen calls itself a project automation tool and yet cautions its users against using it in production. Perhaps I suck as a programmer, but I often need to automate my projects even in production. To paraphrase Blade, using Clojure often makes me feel like I'm a motherf**cker ice skating uphill.
And to finish with something non-gloomy, there are over 500 of the following:
Thanks! <3 Clojure! Keep on being awesome!
State of Clojure 2014, we're done here.