Is this just me, or does the code in the post feel like they've implemented what should have been a new programming language on top of Java?
Their "variables" have names that you have to keep as Java strings and pass to random functions. If you want composable code, you don't declare a function, you call .macro(). For control flow and loops, you don't use if and for, but a weird abstraction of theirs.
I feel like this code could have been a lot simpler if it was written in a specialized language (or a mainstream language with a specialized transpiler and/or Macro capabilities.)
I'd quote the old adage about every big program containing a slow and buggy implementation of Common Lisp, but considering that this thing is written in Clojure, the authors have probably heard it before.
Internally there actually is a new programming language, implemented using Clojure macros (so it's also Clojure). The Java dataflow API is exposing a subset of that language. We did it this way rather than expose this new language directly because most people don't know Clojure and we don't feel it necessary or desirable to require people to have to learn a new language to benefit from this technology.
Their "variables" have names that you have to keep as Java strings and pass to random functions. If you want composable code, you don't declare a function, you call .macro(). For control flow and loops, you don't use if and for, but a weird abstraction of theirs.
I feel like this code could have been a lot simpler if it was written in a specialized language (or a mainstream language with a specialized transpiler and/or Macro capabilities.)
I'd quote the old adage about every big program containing a slow and buggy implementation of Common Lisp, but considering that this thing is written in Clojure, the authors have probably heard it before.