3 ms·
I don't understand this. We use Clojure for our startup - we occasionally drop down to Java for some libraries (EC2 comes to mind). If I were to use clojurescri
by pbiggar 14y ago
I don't understand this. We use Clojure for our startup - we occasionally drop down to Java for some libraries (EC2 comes to mind). If I were to use clojurescript, I'd want to drop down to JS too. So why is clojurescript being designed without taking that - the thing that allowed clojure be so successful - into account?
- swannodette 14y agoThe post was mostly about challenges around integrating with popular JS MVC frameworks. I think the overall ClojureScript JS integration story is as about as good as Clojure and Java.
- pbiggar 14y agoI was responding to this line "Still, I'm hopeful for pure ClojureScript libs that show how expressive Clojure can be for client side development if you approach the problem without the usual JS assumptions.", which is what I don't understand. I havent used coffeescript, but from the article and your comment, it doesn't sounds like the integration is as good - the Java/Clojure integration is really very very good in practice.
- pbiggar 14y agoTypo, too late to edit: s/coffeescript/clojurescript/
- sgrove 14y agoI wrapped/integrated handlebars templates last weekend, and after understanding how the google Closure library/compiler does things, it took ~15 minutes to have it working beautifully (using basically the same technique as jayq). For a lot of the libraries, it's not a big deal. For others, I assume that the imperative style that's so pervasive in JS makes it more difficult to use in cljs without lots of tedious macros. I'm slightly optimistic that the google Closure library, as much as I dislike the style of it, may actually end up imposing just enough structure and reasonable common practices that cljs and other languages can really interop nicely.