4 ms·

There certainly is a minimum, especially when bringing in another language entirely. The point of the google closure compiler, with advanced opts, tree shaking

There certainly is a minimum, especially when bringing in another language entirely. The point of the google closure compiler, with advanced opts, tree shaking etc etc is that the size will grow slowly as you add hundreds of your own source files and dozens of 3rd party libraries. Choosing libraries shouldn't require careful examination of their output file size, especially if you only want half the functionality.

ryanlaws 9y ago
Are you implying then that the Closure Compiler mitigates or even eliminates the need to carefully examine the output sizes because of its optimization capabilities? If so, that's great, but I do remain skeptical about this, based partly on my experience described above. I don't mean this in a sarcastic or dismissive way but I was expecting to see something along the lines of: console.log("Hello world!") I realize this is a silly example for such a powerful tool but I just wanted to quickly get a feel for what the compiler is capable of before I committed a whole lot of time to learning the language. All I got out of the exercise was that the compiler creates a much larger minimum package size than I'd hoped. I'd appreciate any suggestions on a better way of proving its value for the cautiously curious. The language itself seems great, as does the community. Perhaps it's just a different paradigm from npm/webpack, e.g. utilizing a rich built-in library rather than, yeah, carefully grocery-shopping for only the components you need? I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other but it does intuitively seem that choosy shopping will tend to yield a smaller package size, at least for small-to-medium applications.
- christophilus 9y ago
  Clojurescript's bundle size for real world apps is decent, especially given the power it provides. If all you're doing is a 3 line JavaScript, Clojurescript won't benefit you. But if you're writing a complex application,it will beat or match your typical JS stack in terms of code size. I suggest watching this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gsffg5xxFQI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gsffg5xxFQI
  - ryanlaws 9y ago
    Thanks for the link.

ryanlaws 9y ago

Are you implying then that the Closure Compiler mitigates or even eliminates the need to carefully examine the output sizes because of its optimization capabilities? If so, that's great, but I do remain skeptical about this, based partly on my experience described above. I don't mean this in a sarcastic or dismissive way but I was expecting to see something along the lines of: console.log("Hello world!") I realize this is a silly example for such a powerful tool but I just wanted to quickly get a feel for what the compiler is capable of before I committed a whole lot of time to learning the language. All I got out of the exercise was that the compiler creates a much larger minimum package size than I'd hoped. I'd appreciate any suggestions on a better way of proving its value for the cautiously curious. The language itself seems great, as does the community. Perhaps it's just a different paradigm from npm/webpack, e.g. utilizing a rich built-in library rather than, yeah, carefully grocery-shopping for only the components you need? I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other but it does intuitively seem that choosy shopping will tend to yield a smaller package size, at least for small-to-medium applications.

christophilus 9y ago
Clojurescript's bundle size for real world apps is decent, especially given the power it provides. If all you're doing is a 3 line JavaScript, Clojurescript won't benefit you. But if you're writing a complex application,it will beat or match your typical JS stack in terms of code size. I suggest watching this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gsffg5xxFQI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gsffg5xxFQI
- ryanlaws 9y ago
  Thanks for the link.