Fork me on GitHub

Can the primary dev environment be a checkbox instead of a radio button? In my case, I work for a consultancy and we work with multiple languages.


for example, I imagine a common option would be: Java & Javascript


or Ruby & Javascript


also, question number 5, there is probably an option missing: Outside my org and inside my team


or just make it a checkbox too


@roberto For Q3 I’d say it’s what you, personally, primarily worked on prior to Clojure so pick whichever one is most accurate. I also used “several” languages prior to Clojure but I just picked what I mostly used at my previous job. For Q5, since “organization” includes “team”, the primary users can’t both. (I don’t speak for @alexmiller or the other others of the survey — I’m just someone filling it out!)


but there is nothing that says: outside my org/team AND inside my org/team


or i might just be reading it wrong


Again primary users.


I’d be surprised if you have exactly the same number of users outside your org as within your team?


hmmm, I guess I didn’t understand the question. Didn’t know that quantity mattered.


Ah, OK. Usually when a question asks about something “primarily”, it means “mostly” / “most often” / “the most”, so there can be only one answer.


yeah, but that apparently always tend to result in outside org for a small consultancy, because the clients will always have more employees, even if there are is more clojure code in internal tools.


but, with the definition you provide, it is clearer now what the answer should probably be, but I still feel it is leaving out a sector


maybe I’m just over thinking it


Yes, I would expect a small consultancy to have most of its users “outside the organization”.


I can’t remember if the question about what sort of things you build with Clojure has an option for “internal tools”?


Yeah, looks like there’s an option for that sort of thing (had to open a new private window in Safari to get back into the survey to look!).

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:43

@roberto I think you’re over-thinking it :) also, if a question does not apply well, feel free to skip it.

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:27

@roberto last year we had this as a multiple option (years in the deep past were single choice). the problem is that respondents seemed to take this as an opportunity to check as many boxes as possible and that resulted in very noisy data that prevented us from extracting actual information from the question.

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:04

most people can pick a single “primary” language - if you have multiple, either pick one “most” or skip it or leave a comment

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:04

the thing we’re trying to understand is: what former language community do you most identify with (looking at vectors of how people enter the Clojure community)

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:28

and then secondarily, we can look at all the other responses as a function of this answer, so for example people coming from Java tend to miss static typing. people coming from Ruby/Python are the ones who pine for faster startup / better scripting capabilities. people coming from C++ are primarily interested in concurrency and performance. [these are all generalizations but there is evidence in the data for all of them based on this segmentation]


thank you @alexmiller that explanation is very heplful


sorry for being so pesky


sill question:




is the low number a higher priority?


or vice versa?

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:58

the highest priority thing should be at the top of the list, so #1 is highest priority


ah, ok. thank you

Alex Miller (Clojure team)18:12:26

the control for this is different than last year and certainly seems more confusing


(at least you’ll know to add explanatory text to that Q next year — ranking from 1..N seems to be a perpetually confusing thing in almost every survey I’ve seen over the years… One year I got feedback from a talk I gave and it was all ranked 4’s and 5’s except for one survey that was all 1’s and the comment “Great talk!”… the conference’s intent was 1 = bad, 5 = good but it wasn’t clear on the forms!)