3 ms·
Hm the /amount/ of syntax isn't something I think about I guess, this being a Lisp. I think they've taken the approach of making the system thorough and capabl
by tekacs 7y ago
Hm the /amount/ of syntax isn't something I think about I guess, this being a Lisp.
I think they've taken the approach of making the system thorough and capable and this being a Lisp, we users can skin it with any level of shorthand that we please.
Datomic (the database from Cognitect) has a similar approach with its schema, which is quite verbose, but many folks that I know tend to simply write a function which spits out the schema, since it's 'just data'.
I tend to use Ghostwheel [1], but there's also spec-tools [2] and others.
[1]: https://github.com/gnl/ghostwheel https://github.com/gnl/ghostwheel
[2]: https://github.com/metosin/spec-tools https://github.com/metosin/spec-tools
- keithasaurus 7y agoSchema is a pretty nice alternative: https://github.com/plumatic/schema https://github.com/plumatic/schema
- peferron 7y agospec.alpha is implemented as a bunch of macros that make it difficult to work with spec forms as if they were "just data". This is one of the issues that spec-alpha2 tries to address [1]. Sure, you can import libraries to try to work around it but that's hardly ideal. [1] https://github.com/clojure/spec-alpha2/wiki/Differences-from-spec.alpha https://github.com/clojure/spec-alpha2/wiki/Differences-from...