4 ms·
> ...but right now we're focusing on building stuff instead of playing with languages Which is exactly what's so compelling with regard to ClojureScript and sa
by llambda 11y ago
> ...but right now we're focusing on building stuff instead of playing with languages
Which is exactly what's so compelling with regard to ClojureScript and say Om or any one of the React wrappers out there: you guys already use Clojure and ClojureScript and its libraries are incredibly pragmatic and designed for "real work". CoffeeScript would seem more like language play than ClojureScript, but of course I'm speaking as an outsider. :)
Also if you haven't already, take a look at David Nolen's recent talk on Om Next[1]. Personally if I were using Clojure on the backend, I'd be pushing hard for it on the frontend too.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByNs9TG30E8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByNs9TG30E8
- vcarl 11y agoPersonally, I'm not a big fan of CoffeeScript and it's something I brought up when I started, but at the end of the day you can write good and bad code in any language. I've watched that talk and found it really compelling, but I'd sooner get rid of Backbone than change languages. I've been following Dan Abramov's stuff pretty closely, the refinements in Redux seem to take the best parts of Om and Flux.