Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Einstein on Clojure

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

- Albert Einstein, The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933)

Saturday, 16 June 2012

It's time

EuroClojure 2012 was almost a month ago. Now that my thoughts have settled I've made an attempt to distill what the event meant to me.

First of all, I was impressed at the intellectual engagement of the speakers and attendees. This is a grown-up community. Talks were less about "How do I do X in Clojure" and more about using the language to move the industry forward.

If you're a developer who's interested in the avant-garde, you should be paying attention to what this community is coming up with. I left feeling that Clojure is less a programming language and more a delivery mechanism for the Clojure philosophy.

But what is the Clojure philosophy?

Whether it was Rich Hickey railing against in-place database updates, Nick Rothwell animating art, Max Weber explaining CQRS or Paul Ingles exploring event-sourced analytics, an underlying theme was that time deserves first-class representation in interesting systems.

Even more directly, Bruce Durling's Incanter incantations and Jeff Rose and Sam Aaron's waveform wizardry manipulated time-series data before our eyes to great effect.

In an age where we can no longer assume that the universe marches to the beat of a single CPU, implicit time-management is no longer a convenience but a crippling limitation.

So when someone asks me "Should I adopt Clojure yet? What is the killer application?" I will answer them:

It's time.

Sunday, 10 June 2012


Multi-threading is hard. To fully understand a piece of multi-threaded code the reader must mentally interleave two or more competing timelines. Our poor primate brains have enough trouble managing one thread of execution.

But what if we didn't have to carry around the idea of time at all? What if we could move about the codebase without having to mentally pause, play, fast-forward and rewind a hypothetical execution instance of the program?

The venerable and venerated Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs comments with sadness on the entrance of the mutation-snake into the Lisp Garden of Eden: 
With objects, we must be concerned with how a computational object can change and yet maintain its identity. This will force us to abandon our old substitution model of computation in favor of a more mechanistic but less theoretically tractable environment model of computation. The difficulties of dealing with objects, change, and identity are a fundamental consequence of the need to grapple with time in our computational models. These difficulties become even greater when we allow the possibility of concurrent execution of programs.
Immutability makes code easier to understand because it allows the reader to use a simpler mental model.

Code that exclusively employs immutable (immortal) variables is effectively unthreaded from the reader's point of view. The meaning of the code is no longer dependent on time at all. The value of a symbol is a function of its definition - history is irrelevant.

Single-threaded code is easier to understand than multi-threaded code. But unthreaded code is best of all.