4 ms·
I'm a huge fan of Clojure's Hiccup library. It allows the user to make html like the following. Here's a function that always returns true - but it could do a
by escherize 11y ago
I'm a huge fan of Clojure's Hiccup library. It allows the user to make html like the following.
Here's a function that always returns true - but it could do any kind of data access. It is just plain Clojure.
(defn selected? [] true)
Here is a datastructure that represents html:
[:h2 {:class (when (selected?) "selected")} "Hello"]
Calling the function hiccup.core/html on that datastructure yeilds an html string like this:
"<h2 class='selected'>Hello</h2>"
So that's great for _strings_ right? But there is an awesome library for ClojureScript called Reagent. And it uses those simple datastructures to generate react components!! I put some more examples at: http://hiccup.space http://hiccup.space
- teej 11y agoI don't know man. Every time I've worked with that style of approaching the problem, it feels like I'm just writing HTML with different syntax.
- mst 11y agoIf (if) you already like lisp, it more feels like writing HTML with cleaner, more composable syntax. Were I working on an all-lisp team, I'd be totally happy to use it. Since I'm generally not, JSX function components seem to be the next best (or at least next-least-worst) thing.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> I'm a huge fan of Clojure's Hiccup library. It allows the user to make html like the following. It helps that Clojure's syntax is based on s-expressions, and s-expressions are already isomorphic to HTML/XML. So in a way, you're still mixing your templates and your code, but you happen to be using the same syntax for both. Which is arguably an improvement.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- munro 11y agoI love Clojure, but I'm tired of embedded DSLs, they're a dime a dozen. You can argue the benefits of Hiccup's syntax & s-expr all day, but it's still a different, and unpopular syntax for describing HTML. The ability to copy snippets of HTML from web, or old code when refactoring, or from Clojure/Hiccup to another language & framework, or changes from developer tool, or familiarity for new engineers, or not having to care about what flavor of HTML is hip today is a huge productivity boost for me. I would love to see push for template strings [1] in Clojure, it should be trivial with macros. It would only take some time for IDEs to catch up. They're good. So good they've even influenced Python 3 to add them. (defui my-component [x] "<h2 class=(when (selected? x) ["selected"])>Hello</h2>") [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/template_strings https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
- escherize 11y agoSo you _actually_ use function names as strings? That seems like a problem, and that it would need its own special editor tooling. Yikes.
- munro 11y ago(defui my-component [x] <h2 class=(when (selected? x) ["selected"])>Hello</h2>) It's possible to macro the above to the code below, without any language extensions. IntelliJ has powerful nested DSL introspection, it would be neat if Cursive allowed to hook into this through defui's metadata for highlighting. I was a hater of JSX until I used it. Now I hate eDSLs. :D (defn my-component [x] [:h2 {:class (when (selected? x) ["selected"])} "Hello"])
- rakoo 11y agoI have discovered this little gem, allowing you to do the same in pure Javascript: https://github.com/leeoniya/domvm https://github.com/leeoniya/domvm The equivalent would be something like function() selected { return true } ["h2", {class: function() {if (selected()) {return "selected"}}}, "Hello"] Not as clean, but still usable IMO