Well, I can't use cljs without clj, but for work I only commit cljs, and we use shadow-cljs. It's much better than typescript imho.
Yeah, on the other hand, every manager I've ever talked to and every colleague who was not a clojure enthusiast also asked as a first question: "ok, clj is nice, but how we are going to get enough developers for it? Better stick with some conventional language because then we don't have to worry!" Current job is the first where I was able to use it and I suspect it's at least partially due to the global situation atm.
About 8 months in a clojure job, and I really don't want to switch to another language. I'm ready to try going the self employed route for maybe half a year if it comes to it
I need a :same emoticon 😉
It's definitely a chicken and egg situation. If you are a Clojure shop, lots of people want to work for you but many of them are Clojure enthusiasts rather than Clojure developers, so you have to be prepared to hire "junior" Clojure devs (who may be experienced in other stuff) and train them -- or else you will be restricted to a very small pool (i.e., the very problem you're trying to avoid).
I would like to propose that 99% of those people who are called 'smart and get things done' by Spolsky are also nothing special just lucky and willing to work.
by nothing special, I mean I do not believe in innate special abilities that somehow raise some people above others. It's mostly an illusion.
I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying. The approach he outlines in that little book is specifically a departure from the "find the rock stars" approach, that you're apparently attributing to him.
Luck is much more of an illusion, though. Except in the sense of "the harder you practice, the luckier you get." I.e. it's about the work you put in.
I am not sure why you think I was talking about rockstars?
anyway, not here to argue but happy to continue this in private if you feel like it 🙂
Apologies if I misunderstood you.
probably 🙂 and I count being born in a large family that can support their kids learning through their teens, can buy equipment and other stuff as "exceptionally lucky"
Perhaps "fortunate" rather than "lucky" -- so that we can all view "luck" as "random positive outcome"? 🙂
I am not sure what's wrong with the word luck here, is there a connotation that doesn't apply and I am not aware of it?
As a non-native speaker I am very much open to broaden my language skills 🙂
You were "exceptionally fortunate" that your family could support their kids and you can buy equipment etc.
"luck" would be nearly dying of a childhood disease but surviving against all odds.
I wish I were so lucky but I wasn't. I am more in the category of having survived multiple extremely serious childhood health issues
anyway, i guess it was a 'global' you,
your definition suggest that in order to be lucky, you have to be unlucky first
That's why I prefer "fortunate" over "lucky" 🙂 I nearly died at six weeks old but a brand new surgery was able to save me (hence giving that as an example of "luck" since several things happened just the right way for me to get diagnosed quickly and be close enough to a surgeon that knew the procedure and then to survive the process).
but you were unlucky more than lucky
the true luck is to avoid such situation in the first place
this is akin to my relatives saying how God healed them from illnesses...
Hahaha... you'll get no religious comments from me! And, yeah, I'd say a combination of being "fortunate" and "lucky" over the years has gotten me to where I am and I would have a hard time picking between those for some things that have happened to me.
Heh, I am sorry, perhaps it wasn't the best example. The religious part of it was not the most important aspect for me. I just seen the structure that the initial misfortune is although necessary, it is discounted.
But even with that definition, I just realized, that since most people do not have this luck to being born to such family, you can safely say that you have evaded a worse situation 🙂 I admit this is a bit pessimistic, since it points out that one could argue that being born is a form of unluck. As some eastern philosophies do 🙂.
The "accident of birth".
Bringing this all back on topic-ish: there's definitely an element of pure "luck" around the whole job/hiring process since so many things have to fall into place for you (global) to get a specific job you want. And a lot of people who are unhappy in their current job (for myriad reasons) but are "unlucky" enough not to be able to find/move into something they'd like better.
And if you're not a Clojure shop that may not look very attractive when you can easily hires devs right now for whatever tech you're currently using...
> I'm ready to try going the self employed route for maybe half a year if it comes to it as a freelance developer i always involve the client in the decision to pick technologies. it may not be the best thing for them that i use clojure[script]. i usually present it as a tradeoff where i can get the job done far faster, but that they may have trouble finding an expert in the language in my city. this is less of a concern if they are ok with remote workers.
some clients simply don't care what technology i use which is awesome! :clojure-spin:
That's a good approach @chris358 -- I get the impression that is an easier sell if you're Cognitect (but they also use non-Clojure tech for projects where that is a concern for their clients, I believe).
I've been fortunate that I've been able to introduce new tech -- in various forms -- at a number of my workplaces over the decades. But I certainly count my choice to bring in Clojure to World Singles Networks as one of my best decisions, with hindsight, and I'm very grateful to the forward-thinking management for being allowed to do that (and for their trust in me).
generally a sign of a good client/employer if they're willing to consider reasoned argument