I have plans to make an nrepl-integrated system debugger for integration with cider, although the existing debugger is quite good already.
This library has just hit RC3, which includes a test suite adapted from ANSI-TEST, and is ready for release after a tiny bit more testing.
(it is a chapter from "Practical Common Lisp", an really excellent book!)
Now someone just needs to implement a reliable way to add/reload dependencies without restarting the REPL.
Alex Miller is working on this as an official clojure functionality, see the add-lib, add-lib2 and add-lib3 branches of deps.alpha. It's just brewing very slowly... hopefully with Tonsky now on board they are able to speed up this and other topics!
The other issue, though, is that I think the JVM and a couple of Clojure’s core design decisions are hampering the “everything is reloadable” workflow you get with Common Lisp: in CL, I can leave my REPL running for months and load five or six projects in parallel with no problem. In Clojure, I’ve found that I’m continuously restarting the REPL because things like protocol implementations are hard to reload cleanly.
Congratulations, and thank you!
That doesn't mean that you can't be critical! But critical comments need more care—first, to make sure that they're informative, and second to make sure they're free of swipes and putdowns.
I dare say that this is particularly important in Lisp-related threads. A constant caution to those of us here who love Lisp and related topics is what happened to c.l.l., a community that was once one of the richest in computing and then self-immolated because a few people, for whatever reason, decided to normalize behaving like assholes. So on HN, on all programming topics and especially on Lisp ones, people need to treat each other kindly and share information in a spirit of helping, not putting down.
(Also—please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with.)
I don't think the tone there repelled many people; there must be other reasons, like Python (unfortunately!) replacing Lisp in several domains.
Most newsgroups had a moderated sibling, which was more polite but universally less popular than the main unmoderated one. If the repelled persons had wanted polite discussion, they could have gone there, but they didn't.
I prefer to listen to what they have to say, especially if it means that I have a chance to make my future writing better in some way. (And I already have one concrete issue that I've remembered and passed on to the people that I've been working on my book with, so it's a net win for me.)
Also, I don't think I can really make use of the latter part; it implies that only people who have taught the subject for years are qualified for writing technical books, which - given that I am not a teacher and likely won't be one - gives the resulting vibe of "just give up" without any possible improvements. I can't make any use of that in order to improve my current or future writing.
I get your point on not being a teacher, but I would recommend doing it as blog posts then and not a book, a book implies something much more. Or maybe I’m just old school and not for the current times. After all, there are countless of ebooks of questionable quality on various programming topics.
I'm curious about "a book implies something much more" though. I have seen multiple series of blog posts that then grew to the point where they were actually published as books. What's the difference between the two when one wants to tell them apart via their content? What's this implication that you mention?
For example, books (at least used to) have editors, and reviews by multiple specialists in the field. I can’t think of distinct step between personal writing and something publishing, so I cannot add meaningful comments to your question.
Thanks for the feedback; I'll let my reviewers/editors know, get this fixed in the second edition, avoid doing that in my future writing.