Pretty good list that I mostly agree with. I think the only point of contention I may have is with using timbre--having tried it in the past, I found it didn't do much that clojure.tools.logging couldn't do for most use-cases, and added configuration complexity while not sparing me the trouble of dealing with logback XML configs and whatnot--Java logging seems to rears its ugly head no matter what you do, especially when using a fair amount of interop as our project does (and as any big project probably does to some extent). Seems like it's best to simply suck it up and learn how Java logging works. But, it's probably worth giving it the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps I should give it another shot--it's been a little while since I last tried it so maybe it's improved, or maybe I simply didn't understand well enough how to set it up effectively.
Otherwise, lots of great points. One other thing I will say about Schema (https://github.com/plumatic/schema): while it's a lifesaver in a lot of ways, its mere existence really does expose some of Clojure's deficiencies when it comes to the type system (or lack thereof). I'm probably in the minority in the Clojure world but I really wish that it had better static typing and a more sophisticated type system sometimes. I've mostly made my peace with it but once in a while I look longingly at ML-family languages from afar...
Author here. I agree, Timbre is new, and has some rough edges, but in my projects, I've found them worth putting up with. In my current project (18k LoClojure), I think the only serious dependency I have that uses j.u.logging or SLF4J is Datomic. Timbre has an interop library that will pipe java logs through timbre.
I agree knowledge of how Java logging works is still useful, but I'm not willing to be part of the problem anymore :-)
Agreed on Schema, and how it illustrates deficiencies in the type system. I still want core.typed, or something like it, but it's too immature for production use.
Totally understood re: timbre and not being a part of the problem of the Java logging ecosystem. I'll play with it again next time I have a chance and see if the interop lib can't solve some of the issues I had before.
One other thing I will say about Schema (https://github.com/plumatic/schema): while it's a lifesaver in a lot of ways, its mere existence really does expose some of Clojure's deficiencies when it comes to the type system (or lack thereof).
What are good examples of situations where static typing is better than schemas?
I agree, both in the "mostly agree with" and disagreeing with the list regarding timbre. Adding yet another logging library to the mix doesn't fix the mess of Java logging libraries. Especially given that timbre seems to share the logging philosophy which makes Java logging such a mess in the first place; e.g., bundling an e-mail appender.
I'd personally add the potentially controvertial "prefer transducers to lazy sequences." Lazy seq laziness is a big source of errors for newbies, and even for old hands since 1.7 Iterable-backed lazy seqs have surprising chunked realization behavior. Transducers take a bit more up-front effort to gain familiarity, but then yield fewer surprises.
Otherwise, lots of great points. One other thing I will say about Schema (https://github.com/plumatic/schema): while it's a lifesaver in a lot of ways, its mere existence really does expose some of Clojure's deficiencies when it comes to the type system (or lack thereof). I'm probably in the minority in the Clojure world but I really wish that it had better static typing and a more sophisticated type system sometimes. I've mostly made my peace with it but once in a while I look longingly at ML-family languages from afar...