Earlier this week, after responding to a post on
ClojureVerse, I got curious about re-implementing the basics
of Emacs’s regexp-opt function in Clojure. I thought it would be a
fun little coding exercise so I decided to take a stab at it during a
few spare minutes in my day and was very pleased with the concision
and clarity of the result.
Lately I’ve been dabbling in using commas to control indentation in Clojure. I’m sure this will be a contentious one, but I wanted to put it out there to spur converation.
There’s a loose convention in Clojure of leaving top-level (comment ...)-style comments in source files to give examples of how a
particular piece of code works or to provide a convenient means of
invoking functionality contained in the file. You can even see this
in the source files to Clojure proper.
Even though leaving commented out code can seem a bit messy, it has also saved me a ton of time relearning how to invoke something, so I have somewhat mixed feelings about the practice. But, regardless of the merits of using this in production code, it’s unarguably useful in development, and I use it extensively as I work to test out function invocations with different arguments, and to store little bits of test data.
Frustratingly, this form does not play nicely with CIDER’s C-M-x
(cider-eval-defun-at-point) and C-c M-;
(cider-eval-defun-to-comment) commands, which expect the target form
to be at the top-level of the file. The containing (comment ...)
form means that technically isn’t so, leading me to perpetually
evaluate the wrong form…
When working on CollBox, we have a handful of external services
the app depends on which we need to have running at development time.
I used to run these via Foreman, but somewhere along the way my
Ruby installation seems to have gotten borked (thanks, Catalina?)
and since then I’ve been running the services by hand. I always work
in a tmux session anyway, so I decided it was time to see
what it would look like to launch my window full of dependencies in
tmux from a script.
Last year I tried out making a reading list in January, to keep myself reading at an acceptable pace, and to put a bit more foresight into what I would be reading. This worked out pretty well. Despite finishing a couple of my 2016 books in the first days of 2017, I largely stuck to my schedule, and I finished everything on my list, including a few rather lengthy items. I actually didn’t read a whole lot more than I had listed (to my surprise), which makes me even more confident that this is a good idea, since it sets a minimum reading curriculum.
Again this year, I’ve tried to establish some common themes to allow for comparative reading and amass some knowledge of a field. The stronger themes are decision-making (four books) and creativity (four books), and the remaining four books are loosely centered on self-improvement, though that’s more of a coincidence than a plan.
Last Black Friday I posted to Facebook:
I’m abstaining from buying anything today in protest of excessive consumerism. Make something instead!
And got a rather curious reply from a friend:
I wish I could make things
I mulled that over for quite a while. I struggled to put myself in the commenter’s shoes. It’s wildly foreign to me.
In my head, clearly creation is for everyone. It’s not the domain of some privileged class of individuals—it’s an essential act of being human. Everyone should—and can!—create. But I kept tugging at the thread because of a nagging suspicion that perhaps lots of people feel this way.
I was just lying in bed reading when I had a small realization related to my last post, No, Seriously, It’s Naming1: my names are wrong–but maybe not how you’d expect.
If you recall, I left things like this:
I just read David Bryant Copeland’s post It’s not Naming That’s Hard—It’s Types which he wrote in response to Katrina Owen’s What’s in a Name? Anti-Patterns to a Hard Problem and I feel compelled to say a few words. Katrina’s post provides some suggestions around the perennial developer challenge of naming things in code. Along the way she asserts that including the type of a variable in its name is typically an antipattern, and “type information is just not that compelling”–something David took great exception to.
David argues that the actual problem is we don’t have enough types: “types are a better way to solve the problems Katrina identifies in her post.”
He then proceeds to turn Katrina’s perfectly reasonable bit of code…
def anagrams(subject, candidates)
candidates.each do |candidate|
subject != candidate && same_alphagram?(subject, candidate)
end
end
def same_alphagram?(subject, candidate)
# ... (not provided, but I want to offer a fair comparison of length)
end…into this…
TLDR: If you need to send emails via SendGrid from a Clojure application, check out the sendgrid library I just released, it’s pretty swell.
Whenever you look around, you know what you should be doing: creating and launching and selling a product, bootstrapping a business on the side. You’re smart. You’re capable. You’ve got the skills to make stuff […] why can’t you just make this happen? […] We’ll teach you 21 principles for getting off your butt and finally shipping. (official site)
Part of my 2016 reading list.
This is a soup-to-nuts guide to the human aspects of shipping a side project. It’s not going to teach you how to design a logo or a code a website, but if what’s holding you back from completing your dream is lack of confidence, disorganization, over-ambition, etc., then this could be the book for you.
There’s nothing tremendously groundbreaking here, but it’s compact and won’t waste your time (as I’ve come to expect from Amy Hoy).