3 ms·
Last time I tried ClojureScript, I found the interop with web APIs and vanilla js libraries to be horribly lacking, and development was abysmally slow as a resu
by holtalanm 8y ago
Last time I tried ClojureScript, I found the interop with web APIs and vanilla js libraries to be horribly lacking, and development was abysmally slow as a result.
I loved Clojure when I used it, but ClojureScript was a nightmare.
The only saving grace was shadow-cljs, which made it bearable to work with. I eventually dropped it in favor of Elm mostly for the static typing, but also for the tooling, which is leaps and bounds better.
- cutler 8y agoIf your main problem was interop with vanilla JS libs how can Elm possibly be an improvement over Clojurescript?
- holtalanm 8y agobecause ports actually work as documented, even if their functionality is limited.
- yogthos 8y agoMy team has the opposite experience. We've been using ClojureScript on the front-end for over 3 years now, and it's been fantastic. We use Leiningen with Figwheel, and it's by far the most productive workflow that I've seen in any mainstream language. You make changes and you see the results instantly. You also have an editor integrated REPL, so you can explore and try things live. You get things like code pruning and minification out of the box thanks to leveraging Google Closure compiler, and access to the Closure standard library which is quite comprehensive in itself. Meanwhile, tools like re-frame-10x https://github.com/Day8/re-frame-10x https://github.com/Day8/re-frame-10x provide a great way to inspect the state of the app during development. I'm not really sure what you mean regarding the interop either. It works quite seamlessly in my experience, and it's much easier to do than it is in Elm where you have to use ports, and keep all your interop at the edges.
- holtalanm 8y agokewl, downvoted because people disagree with me. yay, we've become reddit apparently.