Clojurians Log v2

@seancorfield I asked and the feedback back was that it's "an understanding of how to model information and relate those models in a system". My intuition is that this is a question about object oriented programming. If so, i guess the good news is i can just channel Rich and sound considerable more clever then I am.

I would expect it to be specifically about doing that sort of system design in data for Clojure and very much not OO stuff…

…it will be interesting to hear their position on qualified keywords @drewverlee 🙂

@drewverlee this talk by Brian Goetz might at least arm you with some interesting food for thought on OO and FP...

https://youtu.be/8GWZE2Y2O9E

I'll try to give it a watch, i feel rather full on oo vs fp. At 24 minutes he lists a bunch of things he thinks oo is better at, but I don't see why objects even matter to the discussion. I'm guessing this guy could code circles around me, but I don't feel like this is an educational talk as much as it is inspirational, a theme I can agree with.

E.g he lists "versioning"

I find it interesting that he is also drawing the opposite diagram that I feel Zach tellman produced. You want ridged core compents/libraries and flexibility when designing glue code

But I haven't produced anything of significance, so I feel hard pressed to want to lecture on either direction.

I agree that’s it’s not a useful talk for the situation you raised (system design for a Clojure job).

I found it a rather disappointing talk overall, to be honest, because it’s very vague and “hand-wavey” — he makes a lot of claims but doesn’t really back any of it up and it felt like “preaching to the choir” to me…

In some ways, it’s about promoting Java-for-FP rather than anything else 😐

@drewverlee is the job at a clojure team but otherwise part of a larger company that does non-clojure languages as well?

That's likely the case, I'll have to learn more. It was just an unfamiliar term to me, but I can imagine it's meaning. My thoughts on domain modeling are simple. Humans give words meaning, machines execute instructions. The less one bleeds into the other, the better. Well, maybe hard to articulate. I suppose the clarity depends on the audience. (That's how you pass the blame to the reader)

My guess is that they use standard names for the interview segments throughout the company, regardless of the language used

Agreed.