3 ms·
If you're going to borrow every idea from ClojureScript and Om, why not simply switch to these technologies instead of relying on so many libraries?
by marcofiset 11y ago
If you're going to borrow every idea from ClojureScript and Om, why not simply switch to these technologies instead of relying on so many libraries?
- davedx 11y agoMany companies will simply not use ClojureScript, it's too niche and too hard to find developers for at the moment. It's much easier to find JavaScript developers.
- collyw 11y agoMany developers are capable of learning a second language. If they are stupid about hiring they will insist on experience with ClojusreScript. And lets face it most companies will do that.
- reustle 11y agoReally? Good luck convincing good JS developers that they should actually be doing Clojurescript at work instead. Maybe you'll have better luck at a local frequent clojurescript meetups (probably doesn't exist).
- gknoy 11y agoI work near a team of people I'd consider "good JS developers". If I were to just go over to their workspace and say, "We should totally use Clojurescript", they'd look at me with a mixture of "LOL, Emacs" or "This guy's a loon". However, if I were to give a presentation talking about how I took X and rewrote it as Y in Clojurescript, and the benefits of doing that -- time, ease of debugging, code readability -- I'm pretty sure that they would not dismiss it immediately. (Of course, this would require me to actually learn Clojurescript well enough to rewrite my JS things in it. ;))
- glibgil 11y agoBecause parenthesis.
- marcofiset 11y agoThat's the most common objection, and it's the one that makes the least sense. If we were to count the number of parenthesis + square brackets + curly braces, we would fine that there is not more symbols in a LISP, just that they are arranged differently.