4 ms·
Given that any ClojureScript app includes the Clojure core APIs, you have a constant size tacked on to any app as compared to raw JS. Of course, this is amortiz
by fnordsensei 7y ago
Given that any ClojureScript app includes the Clojure core APIs, you have a constant size tacked on to any app as compared to raw JS. Of course, this is amortized as the app grows more complex.
Here's one comparison. Smaller than React/Redux, but larger than Elm: https://cdn-media-1.freecodecamp.org/images/DRmH8Fz15DLxXguz9d8NR0eVanX0U9xW9jom https://cdn-media-1.freecodecamp.org/images/DRmH8Fz15DLxXguz...
The constant size of the API is emphasized when you look at the number of lines of code for the same app: https://cdn-media-1.freecodecamp.org/images/Y7vQUAUrMzGi8l3K2VZujbrZYqAIPfKwYXZj https://cdn-media-1.freecodecamp.org/images/Y7vQUAUrMzGi8l3K...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- galfarragem 7y ago> any ClojureScript app includes the Clojure core APIs Shouldn't be also the case of Elm apps? But they are tiny. Probably Re-frame wrapping React (and Redux?) doesn´t help at all. Why not being native (like Elm) or kind of a Svelte wrapper[1] to keep apps small? I really like Clojure expressiveness but I hate waste. [1] https://clojureverse.org/t/create-web-app-with-shadow-cljs-and-svelte/4720/3 https://clojureverse.org/t/create-web-app-with-shadow-cljs-a...
- fnordsensei 7y agoI'm not expert on Elm, but to take a guess, I'd say that it's about different tradeoffs. And "waste" is conditional, if (like you wrote) you're actually making use of the dynamism, immutable data structures, meta programming facilities and whatnot, it's not waste.