Eh, I've used languages that were "hard to approach", one of my favorites (Erlang) is one of those (I use quotations especially because learning all of Erlang's syntax takes about a day).
This is a misapplication of the presentation really. It speaks to a level above selecting a language and is really about the design of systems.
Picking up Kotlin or Clojure is not "harder to approach" by virtue of what's provided in this context, it's harder because Clojure syntax uses parenthesis.
Like that's literally it.
Clojure with the same exact constructs represented with more C-like syntax would, at the level the presentation speaks to, allow the same level of simplicity.
I think a lot of developers feel "It looks funny" is not a fair critique of a useful tool, but just look at Erlang vs Elixr. I love Erlang, much more than I like Elixr, but Elixr gained mind share in large part because it's Ruby-like.
Cognitive overhead is lower working with a language that at least "looks like", what you're used to, and more developers know C-like languages, thus a language like Kotlin is "easier to approach" but necessarily "easier" in the way the presentation talks about
> Clojure with the same exact constructs represented with more C-like syntax would, at the level the presentation speaks to, allow the same level of simplicity.
I don't think this is true. I think it would be easier for "most people," but definitely not simpler. Easy meaning close at hand, simple meaning one strand, one braid, independent, less context necessary. Clojure syntax is the AST of the program, right there in front of you, in literal notation. There are fewer special cases, fewer moving parts interacting. C syntax requires spinning up a virtual machine in your mind and executing multiple statements. C is easier because we've already spent the time and effort to familiarize ourselves with it, but it has more complexity. Compare a 954 line ANTLR grammar for C [1] with a 261 line Clojure grammar [2].
> Cognitive overhead is lower working with a language that at least "looks like", what you're used to, and more developers know C-like languages, thus a language like Kotlin is "easier to approach" but necessarily "easier" in the way the presentation talks about.
I would agree, using Rich's definitions of simple and easy, that Kotlin is easier for the majority of developers than Clojure. This follows immediately from the definition of easy.
> This is a misapplication of the presentation really. It speaks to a level above selecting a language and is really about the design of systems.
I would recommend Rich Hickey's talk "The Language of the System" [3]. The programming language(s) used are part(s) of the system and have an effect on its design. I don't think this is a misapplication of the "Simple made Easy" presentation, I think it hits the nail on the head.
I feel like this comment is throwing semantics in a blender and pouring it out into the shape you want... but I guess that's the thing about arguing semantics, it usually devolves to that...
So I guess I'll just keep my recommendation to Kotlin and you can keep your recommendation to Clojure
> I feel like this comment is throwing semantics in a blender and pouring it out into the shape you want
I don't think it is, though. But it is clear that you are arguing with absolute confidence about a thing you have never given a heartfelt attempt to try first. You are debating like a medieval 13th-century mathematician that Roman numerals are elegant and more comfortable to understand, and people been using them for centuries and no need for this Indo-Arabian numeral non-sense that Leonardo, son of Bonacci so passionately keeps talking about.
I don't want to sound patronizing (I guess I'm already are, although not intentionally), but let me give you an advice - never trust your inner skepticism, fight it, dig for the answer - why are you so skeptical about it. Progress pushed forward by individuals who continuously challenge their beliefs. And from what I can see - you are not a mere consumer of progress, you too, do want to be at the front line where it is being made.
This is a misapplication of the presentation really. It speaks to a level above selecting a language and is really about the design of systems.
Picking up Kotlin or Clojure is not "harder to approach" by virtue of what's provided in this context, it's harder because Clojure syntax uses parenthesis.
Like that's literally it.
Clojure with the same exact constructs represented with more C-like syntax would, at the level the presentation speaks to, allow the same level of simplicity.
I think a lot of developers feel "It looks funny" is not a fair critique of a useful tool, but just look at Erlang vs Elixr. I love Erlang, much more than I like Elixr, but Elixr gained mind share in large part because it's Ruby-like.
Cognitive overhead is lower working with a language that at least "looks like", what you're used to, and more developers know C-like languages, thus a language like Kotlin is "easier to approach" but necessarily "easier" in the way the presentation talks about