Simplicity Ain't Easy - Stuart Halloway

Stuart Halloway has a great talk on this called "Simplicity Ain't Easy" [0] where he more or less states that a FP language like Clojure is basically a better designed OOP language, because FP is basically contains all its strengths (namespaces, abstractions and the like) and none of its weaknesses (e.g. uncontrolled state mutation) and you are able to select and use specific features you need to solve a specific problem, and not being saddled with every feature (including the ones you do not need to solve the problem at hand) at once. [0] ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: Relationship between OO and functional programming?” · View on HN

If you haven’t seen them, I recommend the Clojure guys’ talks about the subject of simplicity. They reached into the etymological history of the word “simple” to pull out its early definition, which is quite precise and IMO tremendously useful in this context, unlike the confused muddle of modern definitions. Rich Hickey, “Simple Made Easy”: [link] Stu Halloway, “Simplicity Ain’t Easy”: ▶ this video

in “UDP and me” · View on HN

I would suggest to you that Clojure has a very clear "the Clojure Way" I would say, more so then almost any other language. It goes beyond syntax to a pretty deep design level. Its not even all that unique to clojure, you could do 'the clojure way' in other languages, but they usally dont. Some of the importent keynotes from some of the early conjs are really importent, and they really went deep in the community, you can see it in almost every major library. Another commenter has mentioned the notion of 'simple' but thats not really all that clear. I not enougth of a writer to tell you about it, but I can give you the resources: - This classic got Clojure on the map for many people: Are We There Yet? - Rich Hickey www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey - Simple Made Easy - Rich Hickey - [link] - Simplicity Ain't Easy - Stuart Halloway - ▶ this video - Ousterhout's Dichotomy Isn't (Part 2 of the Simplicity/Power/Focus Series) - Stuart Halloway - ▶ this video - The Language of the System - Rich Hickey [link] - Hammock Driven Development - Rich Hickey [link] In addition to these, there are many talk that are about people trying to run with these ideas. Datomic is a example of taking these ideas to the max, it really standas as a nice example. You can find others in talks by David Nolan for example, but there are tons of applied talks. - The Design of Datomic - Rich Hickey [link]

in “A farewell note to a programming language” · View on HN

I'll add this to your links: ▶ this video He talks about his definition of "simple" (by digging into what the original English definition was) and what that means for code.

in “I don't love the single responsibility principle” · View on HN

To get an even better explanation on what the word "simple" means and what it derives from, I would recommend "Simplicity Ain't Easy" by Stuart Halloway[1]. While it is very similar to "Simple made Easy", it focuses a lot more on the etymology of the words "simple" and "complex" and how people misuse the word. [1]: ▶ this video

in “Who Says C is Simple?” · View on HN

Also see Stuart Halloway’s earlier talk, Simplicity Ain’t Easy . There’s a fair amount of overlap with Rich Hickey’s talk, but both are worth watching: ▶ this video And also his talk Radical Simplicity : [link]

in “Ask HN: What's the best technical talk you've heard?” · View on HN