3 ms·
Agree strongly ClojureScript - shame it has a terrible name which probably means it won't gain the popularity it deserves. I've also heard good things about Pur
by andy_ppp 8y ago
Agree strongly ClojureScript - shame it has a terrible name which probably means it won't gain the popularity it deserves. I've also heard good things about PureScript.
- vga805 8y agoI haven't been able to put my finger on why cljs isn't more popular, especially given all of the great stuff David Nolen did in the early days of React and the ease of use of figwheel and some other cool things in the ecosystem. I always just assumed it was too big a syntactical hurdle for lots of teams. I.e., I suspect a lot of individuals appreciate it, but it's hard to choose cljs from the business side of things because it looks so foreign to many. That's a shame! Haven't looked into PureScript yet. I'll add it to the list!