I recently spotted a meme on LinkedIn featuring a brooding, aristocratic Dracula asking, "What is a monad but a monoid in the category of endofunctors?" – accompanied by no explanation whatsoever. I chuckled, as one does when recognising an in-joke, but then found myself pondering a rather uncomfortable question: Is this really how we want to present functional programming to the world?

The Allure of the Arcane

There's something undeniably satisfying about mastering difficult concepts. When I first grasped the elegant power of immutable data structures, higher-order functions, and composability, it felt like discovering a secret door in a familiar house – one that led to a vast, beautiful landscape I'd never known existed. That eureka moment is profound, even transformative.

But here's the rub: why do we in the functional programming community so often present that door as if it requires an arcane ritual to unlock? Why do we seem to relish the impenetrability of our terminology?

Let's be honest with ourselves. There's a whiff of intellectual snobbery in the air when functional programmers gather. We've all heard (or perhaps even made) the disparaging remarks about "Java drones" or "code monkeys churning out mutable state on corporate slave galleys". We swap stories about the moment we "finally understood monads" as if recounting our initiation into a secret society. We wear our hard-won knowledge as a badge of honour – and sometimes, if we're being truly honest, as a mark of superiority.

The Hidden Cost of Exclusivity

This exclusivity comes at a cost. Functional programming remains woefully underutilised in the industry at large, despite offering compelling solutions to many of the problems that plague software development. Concurrency, side effect management, robust testing, code reuse – these aren't niche concerns, they're central challenges in modern software engineering. Yet we've somehow managed to position our toolbox of solutions as if it's too rarified for everyday use.

Consider the meme I mentioned. For the initiated, it's a humorous reference to a famously opaque definition. For everyone else, it's not just impenetrable – it actively signals that they don't belong in the conversation. It's a velvet rope strung across the entrance to a club they didn't even know they might want to join.

I'm reminded of my journey from Common Lisp to Clojure. Both languages offer powerful functional paradigms, but Clojure has managed to achieve something remarkable: it has brought functional programming concepts to a significantly wider audience. It didn't accomplish this by watering down the functional paradigm, but by emphasising practicality alongside purity. By meeting developers where they are – on the JVM, with access to the libraries and tools they already know – Clojure created an on-ramp rather than a barrier.

No Monads Required

Here's something we don't acknowledge often enough: you don't actually need to understand monads to be a productive functional programmer. In fact, in languages like Clojure, you can write elegant, powerful functional code for years without ever encountering the term. The core principles of functional programming – immutability, pure functions, higher-order functions, composability – can be understood through practical examples without diving into category theory.

This isn't to say that the deeper theory isn't valuable. Of course it is! The mathematical foundations of functional programming provide extraordinary insight and power. But they're not the entrance exam. They're advanced courses you can take once you're already enrolled.

Yet somehow, we've allowed the most theoretically complex aspects of functional programming to become its public face. It's as if we're advertising a car based on its differential equations rather than where it can take you.

The False Dichotomy

There's an insidious implication lurking beneath this state of affairs: the notion that there are two classes of programmers – the enlightened few who grasp the elegant abstractions of functional programming, and the unwashed masses writing imperative code. This is, to put it bluntly, utter bollocks.

The reality is far more nuanced. Most programmers exist on a spectrum of understanding and application of functional principles. Many Java developers make excellent use of streams and lambdas. JavaScript programmers increasingly embrace immutability and pure functions. Even in traditionally imperative contexts, functional patterns are gaining traction.

These aren't "lesser" applications of functional programming – they're pragmatic adaptations that solve real problems. The senior developer who introduces Option types to avoid null pointer exceptions in a legacy Java codebase is applying functional thinking in a way that delivers immediate, tangible benefits. Should we really consider them less enlightened than someone who can recite the monad laws but has never shipped a product?

Building Bridges, Not Walls

If we truly believe in the benefits of functional programming – and I certainly do – then we should be building bridges to make these ideas more accessible, not walls to keep the uninitiated out.
​
What might this look like in practice?

For starters, we could focus our evangelical efforts on the practical benefits rather than the theoretical foundations. When I'm talking to a team about adopting Clojure or functional patterns, I don't open with category theory. I talk about dramatically reduced bug rates due to immutability. I show how composable functions lead to more reusable code. I demonstrate how side effect isolation makes testing simpler and more reliable. And to really wow them, I might describe how immutable data structures instantly solve the Undo/Redo problem for any application with a frontend.

We could also acknowledge that functional programming isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Encouraging teams to adopt functional patterns incrementally within their existing codebases can yield substantial benefits and build confidence for deeper adoption. The choice isn't between pure Haskell and imperative spaghetti code – there's a vast, productive middle ground.

Most importantly, we need to shift our community culture away from exclusivity and toward inclusivity. This doesn't mean abandoning rigour or depth – it means recognising that everyone starts somewhere, and the journey from imperative to functional thinking is challenging enough without adding artificial barriers.

The Clojure Case Study

It's worth examining why Clojure has been relatively successful in attracting developers who might otherwise have been put off by functional programming's reputation for difficulty.

Firstly, Clojure is pragmatic to its core. It embraces functional principles without dogmatism, allowing for controlled mutability when necessary. It prioritises solving real problems over theoretical purity.

Secondly, it meets developers where they are. By running on the JVM (and later JavaScript engines), it allows gradual adoption and interoperability with existing systems.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Clojure community has generally focused on what the language enables rather than how clever you need to be to use it. The emphasis has been on what you can build, not on arcane knowledge as a status marker.

This approach hasn't compromised the language's functional credentials – Clojure remains thoroughly functional in its philosophy and implementation. But it has made those functional principles accessible to a much wider audience.

A More Welcoming Future

I'd like to see a functional programming community that celebrates bringing new people in rather than keeping them out. One that takes as much pride in making complex concepts accessible as it does in mastering them.

Imagine if our response to someone struggling with functional concepts wasn't "Well, once you understand monads..." but rather "Here's how this approach solved a similar problem I had..."

Imagine if we shared our enthusiasm not through insider references that exclude the uninitiated, but through concrete examples that demonstrate the real-world power of functional approaches.

Imagine if we recognised that the true measure of our understanding isn't our ability to recite category theory, but our ability to apply these principles to build better software and help others do the same.

As I continue to develop Ooloi, my open-source music notation project in Clojure, I'm constantly reminded of this tension. The functional paradigm allows me to build a system that's both powerful and elegant. The code is concise, composable, and expressive in ways that would be difficult to achieve with imperative approaches. But when I'm documenting the system or preparing it for open-source collaboration, I'm mindful of the need to make these concepts accessible.

The goal isn't to water down the functional aspects – they're essential to the system's design. Rather, it's to provide on-ramps that allow developers to engage with these ideas gradually, to see their practical benefits before diving into the deeper theory.

Conclusion

Functional programming isn't a secret to be jealously guarded – it's a powerful set of tools that can dramatically improve how we build software. Its core insights deserve to be widely shared and applied.

​So the next time you're tempted to share that monad joke or category theory reference, ask yourself: Am I opening a door or closing one? Am I inviting others to share in something valuable, or am I simply signalling my own cleverness?

We don't need gatekeepers in the functional programming community. We need guides. Guides who remember what it was like not to know, who can explain complex concepts in accessible terms, who take pride not in how exclusive their knowledge is but in how effectively they can share it.
​
After all, what is a community but a group of people helping each other grow?

It's no secret that I use Generative AI, specifically Claude Sonnet, to assist with the Ooloi project. I use it for writing Clojure tests TDD fashion, for generating Clojure code, for generating documentation, READMEs, architectural design documents and much more.

Above all, I use Claude for exploring architectural strategies before coding even begins. It's somewhat reminiscent of pair programming in that sense: I'd never just task GenAI with generating anything I wouldn't scrutinise very carefully. This approach works very well and allows me to quickly pick up on good design patterns and best practices for Clojure.

It then continued, quoting the code base:

I guess this answers my question about Clojure vs Python. It's not just the functional and immutable aspects of Clojure, it's also specifying the domain stringently through design, architectural discussons, specs, and tests.
​

I continued: "I also use Claude to create ADRs, READMEs, introductions for newcomers, Dev plans, etc. I'm quite open about this; transparency is paramount in an open-source project, and the idea is to facilitate collaborators' understanding of the Ooloi project as much as possible. This means that adherence to best practices, the use of sane architecture, abstracting away the complex stuff without compromising on performance or flexibility, etc, all are central."

Claude responded:

We then went on discussing open-source strategies, tutorials and onboarding materials for contributors and much more which I'll spare you from for now.

​Finally, I asked it to summarise its views on Ooloi as a project:

Now, this level of enthusiasm and praise from an anthropomorphic-presenting LLM (essentially a glorified Markov chain) always makes me deeply suspicious – I'm absolutely allergic to toxic positivity, especially the kind from the USA – so I asked it "Are you sure you're not overly enthusiastic just to please me?". It replied:

I then asked Claude 3.7 to comment on my journey from Common Lisp to Clojure and on the influence from Common Lisp and CLOS on Ooloi:

And finally, I just couldn't resist asking: "What would Rich Hickey say?"

I guess that hypothetical assessment is good enough for me at this point. Still not quite sure that Claude isn't giving me a friendly reach-around, though... ;)

It's been five months since my last update on Ooloi – or FrankenScore, as it's still known in its pre-release incarnation. This silence wasn't planned; rather, it happened because life got in the way. A demanding day job, a significant career change – we had to liquidate Delegat AB and I had to find a new job as a principal-level AWS Cloud Architect – and other responsibilities all conspired to slow Ooloi's momentum.

​I won't bore you with excuses – sometimes one simply must pause to change course, and I really needed to devote all time and mind space to finding what I hope is my final employment. Now that I've secured a great position with HiQ in Stockholm, I can return to Ooloi with full force.

Five months of relative silence offers time to think. Perhaps there's value in stepping back from the constant pressure to show visible output. In such moments, the architecture is refined not through frantic coding but through careful consideration.
​
The journey from Igor Engraver to Ooloi spans decades, and a few months of slower progress hardly register on such a timescale. What matters is that the vision remains clear and the foundation solid.

After all, the whole purpose of the Ooloi project is not to "disrupt the market". Like Octavia Butler's ooloi aliens, we're neither aggressive nor competitive. What is important, however, is doing this right using modern tools. The idea is to create an architecture and a platform that'll last and that musicians and publishers will want to use.

It's also to provide a powerful environment that can be easily extended through any JVM language. Ooloi has a tight, lean and efficient core, organically and seamlessly  augmented by a flora of plugins for any vertical. This would include jazz, early music, tablature, etc - but also commercial plugins to support things like virtual instruments, extremely intelligent playback, or perhaps GenAI used for musical purposes. The idea is to shift the initiative to the users, not to a central committee trying to anticipate user needs.

Ooloi is designed for flexibility and efficiency. Uniting these two aspects sucessfully requires careful architectural design. (And a language like Clojure for the core and the JVM for the plugins.)

With the core architecture stabilising, I'm thinking more about community. Ooloi is intended as an open-source project, a collaborative effort that will benefit from diverse perspectives and expertise.

The extensive documentation work completed earlier – including the architecture decision records, READMEs, and technical specifications – was not merely for my benefit. It prepares the ground for future collaborators, creating a clear map of the territory for those who will join us.
​
The website, this blog, and the growing collection of documentation all serve as beacons for those who might be interested in contributing. They signal our commitment to transparency and proper communication – essential ingredients for any successful open-source project.

Five months of comparative quiet doesn't mean I've abandoned ship; it simply reflects the natural ebb and flow of a project undertaken alongside life's other commitments. Ooloi continues to grow, perhaps not as swiftly as in those heady initial weeks, but with steady purpose nonetheless.

I'm reminded of how musical compositions themselves develop – sometimes in great creative bursts, other times through careful refinement of existing material. Both approaches have their place.

To those following Ooloi's progress, thank you for your patience. The work continues, and updates will come more regularly as we approach the milestone of public release. The vision of a modern, efficient, and elegant music notation system – one built on sound architectural principles and open to community collaboration – remains as compelling as ever.
​
Until next time (which will be considerably less than five months hence),
/ Peter

This journey from Common Lisp to Clojure, from Igor Engraver to FrankenScore/Ooloi, is both challenging and rewarding. It's a testament to the enduring power of Lisp's ideas and the continued evolution of programming languages.

As I continue to develop FrankenScore, I'm captivated by the possibilities that Clojure and its ecosystem offer. While creating a powerful music notation software is the immediate goal, the project's scope extends far beyond that. It's an exploration of the synergies between music, technology, and open-source collaboration – a playground where these elements intersect and interact in novel ways.

To those considering a similar journey, I'd say: embrace the change, but don't forget the lessons of the past. The parentheses may look familiar, but the world inside them is ever-evolving.

In the past weeks, I've been focused on FrankenScore's core architecture. I'm not rushing to open-source this; instead, I'm taking my time to craft a solid platform that will do the heavy lifting for future users and collaborators. All the complexities involving data representation and manipulation in a multi-threaded environment must be solved so collaborators can concentrate on the essentials. Clojure is ideal here, just as Common Lisp was the clear choice for Igor Engraver back in 1996.

Key developments:

1. The API is now fully polymorphic and can be used in the same way internally in the backend as in the frontend. There is a system of pointerless vector path descriptors (VPDs) implemented for this purpose that all API operations can accept as part of their polymorphic setup. I wouldn't be surprised if core collaborators will use the API for internal purposes as well, as it is highly efficient and exposes the underlying functionality in an abstract, domain-specific way. There should be little need to go directly to the underlying data structures, at least not for speed - and certainly not for expressivity. This also bodes well for plugin development in other languages than Clojure, which is an important feature.

2. This beast is fast. Clojure's STM facilities ensure high-speed ACID-compliant transactions with automatic retries. They are also composable. This means that plugins can bombard the backend with hundreds of thousands of mutation requests, for instance to implement MusicXML, with the same efficiency as the pure Clojure backend.

3. Piece Manager Implementation: There's now a Piece Manager, providing functions for storing, retrieving, and resolving pieces from IDs. This allows for multiple clients to work simultaneously on the same piece in a distributed arrangement. The FrankenScore backend can run in the cloud with multiple people collaborating on the same piece. Multiple pieces can be open simultaneously to allow copy-and-paste operations between them.

My next steps involve implementing file persistence (saving and opening music files), as well as tackling printing. These are foundational features, not mere add-ons. Persistence forces a clear definition of the data model and enables easier testing. Printing isn't just about output; it's about representation and serves as a sanity check on the entire system design. Both will likely inform further refinements of the core architecture, potentially revealing oversights or opportunities for optimisation.

Additionally, sequencing is a crucial part of the core platform. And by sequencing I mean support for converting musical representations to timed sound events - though not necessarily via MIDI; a software synth may use direct means of control, for instance. The core sequencer can be used by plugins to generate MIDI, or to input MIDI, but the actual MIDI implementation will be done in the plugin layer. But that's a whole blog post of its own.

Twenty-five years ago, I embarked on a journey to revolutionise music notation software with Igor Engraver. Today, I'm resurrecting that spirit with FrankenScore. But why now? Why breathe new life into a project that's been dormant for a quarter-century?

A Vision Deferred

Igor Engraver was always meant to be freeware, a tool for musicians and composers to express their creativity without financial barriers. Commercial considerations, however, steered us away from that vision. Now, with FrankenScore, we're returning to those roots by embracing open-source development. This aligns with my original intentions and the spirit of accessibility that drove Igor Engraver's creation.

The Tech Landscape: Then and Now

Back in '96, when Igor Engraver was born, the technological landscape was vastly different:

• OS X hadn't been released
• Most computers were single-core
• Software was largely platform-specific
• Clojure, our chosen language for FrankenScore, didn't exist

Today, we have multi-core processors, cross-platform development tools, and languages like Clojure that offer powerful abstractions and concurrent programming models. These advancements allow us to build FrankenScore as a more robust, efficient, and flexible tool than was possible with Igor Engraver.

The State of Music Notation Software

Igor Engraver was conceived because the available options at the time – Finale (as user-friendly as a cactus) and Sibelius (marginally better) – weren't up to the task. They fell short in usability, flexibility, and output quality.

I hated using Finale (and I've written an entire opera in it). Instead of enhancing your creativity – which, at the end of the day, is what a music processor should do – Finale and all other similar programs hampered your creativity.

Surprisingly, a quarter-century later, the field hasn't progressed as much as you might expect. While there have been improvements – some of them clearly inspired by Igor Engraver! – there's still a significant gap between what's available and what's possible.

Why FrankenScore, Why Now?

The time is ripe for FrankenScore, and I can't help but feel a sense of excitement and purpose. We're at a unique intersection of technological readiness and persistent unmet needs in the music notation world. The tools and platforms available to us now make it possible to build something truly revolutionary – a modern, efficient, and cross-platform solution that was merely a dream when Igor Engraver was conceived.

What strikes me is how, despite the passage of time, the music notation software landscape still leaves much to be desired, especially in terms of usability and flexibility. It's both frustrating and motivating. But here's the kicker – we now have this thriving open-source ecosystem at our fingertips. It's the perfect environment for collaborative development and continuous improvement, something I could only have wished for back in the day.

There's also a personal element to this timing. I feel a renewed focus, unburdened by the commercial constraints that ultimately derailed Igor Engraver. We can, as a community, now pour our energy into creating the best possible tool for musicians and composers, staying true to the original vision of accessibility and innovation. And you know what? Those years weren't wasted. The experiences from Igor Engraver – our successes, our setbacks, the lessons learned – they're all invaluable insights that we're bringing to FrankenScore's development. It's like we're picking up where we left off, but with 25 years of additional wisdom and technological advancements in our toolkit.

FrankenScore isn't just a revival; it's a reimagining. We're taking the core ideas that made Igor Engraver revolutionary and implementing them with modern technology and development practices. Our goal is to create a music notation tool that's not just incrementally better, but fundamentally transforms how musicians interact with notation software.

We're excited to embark on this journey, and we invite you – musicians, developers, and enthusiasts – to join us in shaping the future of music notation software. Together, let's bring Igor Engraver's vision to life in FrankenScore.

I should perhaps say something about how Generative AI is used in the FrankenScore project. First of all, I have a prompt of about 4100 lines which prefaces every conversation with the AI chat client. The prompt consists of project documentation, background, design principles and goals, coding principles and conventions, explanations of central code and code examples. It also includes a major part of the source.

This allows the AI to:

1. Analyse and describe the project,
2. Converse about architectural choices,
3. Assist with project planning and open-source strategies,​
4. Judge how well the project embodies best Clojure practices,
5. Generate, with guidance, Clojure code and tests, and
6. Produce meaningful documentation and READMEs.

The copy on this website was almost entirely created by AI means, often using multiple iterations until I arrived at something suitable for publication. There remain a few passages that slipped me by as the AI produced text that reads a little too self-congratulatory on my part, but it was simply the opinion of the AI (though it is of course nice that it likes the code). I'll fix that during the days to come. Also, the technical comparison with other software is a bit too speculative and monotone. I'll change that, too.

In terms of code, I've found that Claude 3.5 Sonnet reasons better at depth about Clojure code than GPT-4o and consequently is the superior choice for complex coding. GPT-4o is still useful for producing text, though. It isn't exactly bad at coding, but it has a tendency to vomit code at you at every opportunity, which is both tiresome and expensive. Also, it kind of loses track when conversations get very long.

And they do; the chains of thought are sometimes complex, and a meandering AI can get costly. Therefore using Claude saves money in the long run.

By the way, it's easy to tell when I am writing. Just look for signs of British English. You know, -ise and colour and whilst and so forth. The AI invariably produces American English.

​As I windsurf through parentheses on my holiday, reviving the spirit of Igor Engraver in the form of FrankenScore, I'm struck by a profound realisation: this is how programming should always feel. Free. Uplifting. Intellectually stimulating. A far cry from being shackled to the oars of enterprise galleys, with some middle manager shouting "ATTACK SPEED!" at bewildered code monkeys.

But why should this freedom be a holiday exception? As programmers (not "developers," please!), we should be grounded in computer science thinking. We need to regularly return to these ancient founts of wisdom, like Lisp, and apply their lessons to our everyday work. Otherwise, we're just highly paid button-pushers in a digital sweatshop.

Remember when computer science curricula started with Scheme? It wasn't about the language; it was about learning to think algorithmically. Then Oracle, in its infinite wisdom (read: hunger for "cannon fodder"), saw Scheme replaced by Java Enterprise. And thus began the great shitshow that's lasted for decades.

Yet, for all its faults, we must tip our hats to Java for gifting us the JVM. And here's where Clojure enters, marrying Lisp's elegance with the JVM's robustness and interoperability. It's like finding out your eccentric uncle and strait-laced aunt had a brilliant love child. But thanks to the JVM, your weird uncle can now fit into the enterprise world. 

Diving into Clojure led me to Rich Hickey's talks. The man veers into philosophical territory faster than a Silicon Valley startup pivots to blockchain. He ponders things like what names are, and why we use them - essential musings for any first-class programmer. It reminds me of my friend Niklas Derouche, architect and coder extraordinaire, who insists you must read Derrida to be a proper architect. Because nothing says "I understand this codebase" like a healthy dose of deconstruction theory. And he is right. Make no mistake.

In three weeks of holiday hacking, I've made more progress and felt more fulfilled than in months of enterprise work. It's a stark reminder of what's possible when we shed unnecessary constraints and return to first principles.

So, fellow coders, I challenge you: When was the last time you felt truly free in your programming? Perhaps it's time we all took a holiday to rediscover the Lisp arts. Who knows, you might just find your programming parentheses - I mean, paradigms - shifted.

​
P.S. If you're about to comment that 'modern' languages and frameworks are just as good, save your breath. I'd sooner believe in the tooth fairy than in the supposed superiority of JavaScript or the 'agility' of SAFe.

P.P.S. If you missed the Ben Hur reference (you uncultured git), this is sprint execution according to SAFe, with the CTO watching: