4 ms·

Two main considerations: Does the bundle size matter? CLJS bundles are not terribly huge but if you need a very lightweight bundle you're out of luck. Vs plain

Two main considerations: Does the bundle size matter? CLJS bundles are not terribly huge but if you need a very lightweight bundle you're out of luck. Vs plain JS there is just no comparison. Vs plain JS + just a few libraries CLJS will probably do worse too. But for anything bigger it starts to catch up. Say I'd never use CLJS for a landing page, but for most kinds of apps there shouldn't be a problem. How do you plan to interact with the wider JS ecosystem? One problem with CLJS is while you can pull in most JS stuff, it doesn't work the other way around. Your CLJS library will not be a first class citizen in the JS world. It can be done but it's not a good idea. You can contribute to the CLJS world, but forget about contributing anything significant back to the JS world. If these two don't bother you, you should be fine.

adamkl 6y ago
> Your CLJS library will not be a first class citizen in the JS world. It can be done but it's not a good idea. Why is this? What makes it a bad idea? Does ClojureScript’s new ‘bundle’ compilation target [0] help resolve whatever issues you are referring to? Genuinely curious. [0] https://clojurescript.org/news/2020-04-24-bundle-target https://clojurescript.org/news/2020-04-24-bundle-target
- auganov 6y ago
  Any CLJS code has to bundle the CLJS runtime. CLJS doesn't compile to idiomatic JS, for example a vector will be a cljs.core/PersistentVector not a JS Array. So code for most CLJS basics has to be bundled with any CLJS code to run. Let's say you write a tiny library that solves just one problem. I would imagine most people wouldn't want to have to pull in the CLJS runtime for just that. So let me be clear - there is no problem in using JS libraries, what you linked speaks to using npm libraries which previously was tougher. CLJS is doing very well on that front. What I'm saying is - if you write a library in CLJS, don't expect plain JavaScripters to use it.

adamkl 6y ago

> Your CLJS library will not be a first class citizen in the JS world. It can be done but it's not a good idea. Why is this? What makes it a bad idea? Does ClojureScript’s new ‘bundle’ compilation target [0] help resolve whatever issues you are referring to? Genuinely curious. [0] https://clojurescript.org/news/2020-04-24-bundle-target https://clojurescript.org/news/2020-04-24-bundle-target

auganov 6y ago
Any CLJS code has to bundle the CLJS runtime. CLJS doesn't compile to idiomatic JS, for example a vector will be a cljs.core/PersistentVector not a JS Array. So code for most CLJS basics has to be bundled with any CLJS code to run. Let's say you write a tiny library that solves just one problem. I would imagine most people wouldn't want to have to pull in the CLJS runtime for just that. So let me be clear - there is no problem in using JS libraries, what you linked speaks to using npm libraries which previously was tougher. CLJS is doing very well on that front. What I'm saying is - if you write a library in CLJS, don't expect plain JavaScripters to use it.