I find this very interesting: http://blog.josephwilk.net/clojure/building-clojure-services-at-scale.html
"[Using Hystrix comes at a cost:] We cannot use Clojure’s concurrency primitives (futures/promises/agents)." That is fascinating to think that at some point Clojure's concurrency primitives are not enough, and so we need to give up on them and move to a Java library. I am aware that Netflix is dealing with unusual scale, but what is the point of Clojure if it doesn't automate exactly these issues? I don't mean this as an attack on Clojure, but rather, I'm curious why issues of thread pool management and circuit breakers don't get baked in to a deeper level of Clojure? After all, that is the reason why people use Clojure, yes? The argument for Clojure is exactly that it automates so much of the work of dealing with concurrency, right? Am I being stupid? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
