That is not interesting. If you are making the point that the rate of Clojure job growth is declining, it could be a data point in support of that hypothesis.
What do you think Clojure's absence from zdnet's list indicates?
> I more often than not suggest moving from Clojure to anything else.
Rewrites are notoriously risky projects, I'm surprised you suggest this the majority of the time.
> you have to trust that the original programmers actually know the language enough to not create a massive disaster
This is my experience, but I've come across many coding disasters and none have been caused by misunderstanding the programming language. All have been due to poor software design or testing.
> Once this happens, you end up in a read-only code situation, and this is a problem because they leave the project with tons of bugs and downright stupid decisions.
Why have you pinned the blame on Clojure? What are the properties of Clojure that cause programs written in it to have so many bugs? Programming languages don't make decisions, let alone stupid ones.
> I joke that I know all 50 Clojure programmers in the US, and sadly, that's not much of an overstatement
This is a massive overstatement. Netflix, Apple, Soundcloud, and Walmart are all using Clojure. I work on a large team of Clojure developers, many of whom are located in the US. The Clojure community is large, healthy and growing. This is not an "esoteric" language.
> If you aren't located in SF, LA, or some other city that attracts talent
I work with Clojure developers all over the world, many in small towns in their respective country. My address hasn't been a factor for any tooling decision I've been a part of, it's a strange (overlooked?) criteria by which to judge technology.
I'm interested to know if anyone here has used this over an extended period of time. Does it work for you? Have you become better at estimating? Have you lowered your defect rate? Have you increased your pace?
I'm skeptical that something this prescriptive could be effective, but it'd be great if there was evidence (anecdotal or a study) that shows this is effective.
That isn't the case for ActionCable, which will become a dependency of the 'rails' gem [1]. You'll have to unbundle the rails gem in your Gemfile, then require the frameworks you want one-by-one in application.rb
Channels allow you to write code that "pulls" events off of a stream or enumerate-like structure. This can dramatically simplify event-heavy front end code.
Bacon.js is a library that exposes a similar technique (FRP), and their readme outlines the benefits in tangible terms
I doubt this is why Go was chosen over Ruby, it would be fast enough for this problem. It probably has more to do with distributing the software.
Distributing programs in written in Go is _much_ easier that distributing them in Ruby, i.e. cross compile and ship the binary, but distribution of Ruby programs is hard.
Too much time is wasted on 'omnibus' projects to distribute Ruby programs, just look at Chef or Sensu or Mitchell's own Vagrant installers project:
Fortunately for everyone outside of Glendale, this is an 8 year (minimum) deal. Over that period the Coyotes won't make it, Columbus doesn't look like they'll make it, and the Panthers might not either. I think the _length_ of this CBA is the most transformative part. There's nothing Bettman can do now except move or shut down franchises.
The largest issue seems to be that Ruby implementations other than MRI have to replicate its bugs in order to be considered a 'Ruby'. A language specification/design would help to solve that problem.
I for one would like to see a focus put on cleaning up the standard library (gem-ifying much of it?) rather than a design committee.
Apple has used 'thinner' and 'lighter' as a differentiator across all of its production lines for years. This won't change because their customers use cases.