I argue that Clojure née the functional programming community writ large capture a peculiar local maximum. I used to subscribe to the “functional = better” camp until going to MIT. I challenge anyone to find a cutting edge CS paper* that is written in their favorite functional language. If it were so effective — wouldn’t one academic have exploited this efficiency to catapult themselves ahead of their imperatively bound brethren?
Maybe there’s something peculiar about academic work that requires an imperative mind. This is why we see the highest paid practitioners programming exclusively in functional languages ... oh wait, the opposite is true.
My theory is that FP hits a nice sweet spot for someone who would like to casually improve their craft. Something akin to breaking out Popular Mechanics after work.
* - excluding, of course, papers about programming languages themselves
> This is why we see the highest paid practitioners programming exclusively in functional languages
Well I don't know how accurate this is, but in 2019 Stackoverflow survey, Clojure practitioners averaged the highest pay of any languages. (in 2020 they removed Clojure from the options so the data is missing).
> I challenge anyone to find a cutting edge CS paper* that is written in their favorite functional language
I rarely see papers written in any particular programming language to be honest, they tend to be pseudo-code and math like. And when you write a paper, you don't really need to be more productive or more reliable, since you write so little code. Plus any paper focused of low level or raw performance will obviously need something with semantics closer to the hardware.
> * - excluding, of course, papers about programming languages themselves
What about papers studying functional algorithms, type theory, automatic differentiation, parallel computing, and all that? Do you exclude those as well? Cause they're often written in a functional language.
I'm not sure if I should conclude that I'm incredibly ignorant of the engineering market, or that Stack Overflow's survey is not representative.
It makes me suspicious that Clojure is shown as the most highly paid language at $90k. Basically any non-new grad developer in a high cost of living area earns more than that, regardless of the language. I'm also suspicious that only 1.4% of survey respondents use Clojure, which may show a bit of a base rate fallacy here.
What would be the explanatory thesis for Clojure programmers being the most highly paid? None of the most highly paid roles I'm personally familiar with in big tech or finance use Clojure, and people who work in those roles earn well into the six (and sometimes seven) figures.
> What would be the explanatory thesis for Clojure programmers being the most highly paid?
I couldn't find a breakdown of the stats by state or city, but here's my guess: Clojure is only used at companies that can take the risk. That is, SF, NYC, and a few other metros. There are businesses that probably run Java or something on their cash cow and want to throw a few bones to the developers for recruitment/resume-driven-development purposes. Whereas JavaScript/C++/Java developers exist at every company and in every tiny city with a much broader pay scale.
Anecdotal, my company does some Clojure. But it's limited to a handful of internal tools and we pretty much ended the experiment years ago. Nothing new is made in Clojure. To my knowledge, we've never hired specifically for Clojure. It's always some dev that knows another language.
It's interesting too that of the top 5, only Go is a non-functional language, the others all are: Clojure, F#, Scala, Elixir.
Right now my guess is that, if you also look at one of the other questions, it turns out Clojure has one of the highest ratio of senior to junior, like Clojure devs average a higher amount of experience as well. I haven't checked the others like F#, but my guess is that most dev using functional programming languages actively and professionally tend to be more senior and thus command a higher salary mostly. That means there isn't as many junior or mid-levels to skew the average salary down, where as my guess is other languages might have an even bigger number of new devs using them like JavaScript for example, which would skew the salary average towards their pay levels.
Cutting edge CS papers are written by Ph.D students who have not had any industrial experience yet. Of course, the code they wrote for those papers would certainly use languages that they learned in school, which would be C/C++/Java if the papers are system papers, python if the papers are ML/DL papers. That tells you nothing about the merit of functional programming language vs. other mainstream language.
If anything, as someone who has a Ph.D. and a career spanning both academia and industry, I can assure you that functional programming languages like Clojure is much more productive than the mainstream languages, even for implementing cutting edge CS research.
My experience of implementing algorithms from papers is that, in Clojure, the implementation is much more straightforward, always almost a direct translation from pseudo code in the paper to actual working code, even the pseudo code is inevitably written in an imperative style. However, the original author's code implemented in c/c++/java is always much more convoluted and bears no resemblance to their pseudo code in the paper. That should tell you one thing: that is functional languages often capture the bare essence of computer science, whereas mainstream language often have too much incidental complexity imposed by the languages themselves.
I have something to tell you about CS researchers and whether they are actually good software engineers......
Seriously though, there are loads of papers out there that use ML variant programming languages (and not _about the language_) that I really wonder what papers you have been reading.
Let's not even get to all the older expert-system papers with stuff written in Prolog.
And yeah, loads of seminal CS papers are effectively just math.
Academics are not, and don't need to be, good software engineers, because the tools and skills one person needs to build a proof-of-concept are different from the skills a large team needs to build production code.
Functional code and immutable data are fundamental ideas for managing complexity in big systems, irrespective of language. Even modern C++ tries to be functional until it has a good reason not to be.
(I also went to MIT, and I work on low-level systems at Google.)
Maybe there’s something peculiar about academic work that requires an imperative mind. This is why we see the highest paid practitioners programming exclusively in functional languages ... oh wait, the opposite is true.
My theory is that FP hits a nice sweet spot for someone who would like to casually improve their craft. Something akin to breaking out Popular Mechanics after work.
* - excluding, of course, papers about programming languages themselves