Skinney

40 ms·

421.
by Skinney 11y ago
From reading core.asyncs documentation, it sounds like this should do the trick: (go (try (let [ops [asyncOpA asyncOpB asyncOpC]] (core.async/take (count ops) (apply core.async/merge ops))) (catch js/Error e
422.
by Skinney 11y ago
Install an exception handler on the channel or return exceptions on the channel. The latter is more common. I've written my own macros to make the latter case pleasant (<10 loc), but I believe the go-catching and <? macros from g
423.
by Skinney 11y ago
> The Javascript framework requires a 1xx KB download before content can be rendered, making your app less performant, hurting SEO... False. React can be rendered on the server and sent in the initial request using ReactDOM.renderToStrin
424.
by Skinney 11y ago
I'll assume the main keywords are "one and a half year ago". Me personally, I like the fact that React is a library wheras Ember is a framework. React doesn't dictate how you code your program, while Ember does.
425.
by Skinney 11y ago
> What nudged me out of my love affair with CLJS is when I needed to implement a really simple async pattern in CLJS. What? Async/await in CLJS is: (defn async-fn [] (go true)) (go (<! (async-fn))) How is that syntactically and
426.
by Skinney 11y ago
Well, if you literally have to leverage TONS of third party libraries, most of which are incompatible, then I would at least be glad that my code, the ui framework, the date handling library, the routing library, the ajax and the validation
427.
by Skinney 11y ago
Google Closure is usable, but only if you write your app in a way that is google closure compatible, the same goes for any dependencies you pull in. In clojurescript, all code you write, and any pure cljs library, is google closure compatib
428.
by Skinney 11y ago
I'm working on a React+ES6 project professionally, and use Clojurescript+Reagent for all my hobby projects. I would gladly use cljs+reagent for everything if I could. First off, cljs allows you to type less. Second, functionality provi
429.
by Skinney 11y ago
What are the benefits of OO? I normally think of encapsulation, but this isn't that big of a deal in Clojure (or many other functional languages) as you normally can't mutate objects anyway.
430.
by Skinney 11y ago
Depends entirely on your queries/mutations and app requirements. Om does produce regular React components, and due to immutable by default collections and data, Om can even beat React when it comes to rendering performance. At the very
431.
by Skinney 11y ago
Importing amd.js/umd/es6 modules would be preferred, but you could also include your .js files using the preamble option.
432.
by Skinney 11y ago
If you use re-frame with reagent (and you should) then the ideas aren't that difficult to grasp. Om.next is more oppinionated regarding where you're allowed to run queries (subscriptions in re-frame) and transactions (handlers in
433.
by Skinney 11y ago
Don't understand the question. Om.Next allows you to have a single root component, that component is responsible for building a query for every sub-component. So you really only have a single query, then render based on the results of
434.
by Skinney 11y ago
You can have an isomorphic app while still using Clojure on the server. CLJ and CLJS can share code using cljc files.
435.
by Skinney 11y ago
Why the downvote? XML could also benefit from automated tag-shortening (in my last place of employement, we encoded XML-tags and attribute-keys manually).
436.
by Skinney 11y ago
The great thing about Transit is that I can extend the data layer with new types (like JodaTime). Even without that, I really like Transit's builtin support for sets, keywords, symbols, lists and vectors (which really helps in a clojur
437.
by Skinney 11y ago
Not really. Transit doesn't care about the underlying data-layer. It could be JSON, could be msgpack, could be XML. Currently, only JSON and msgpack backends exist. XML is probably ruled out due to performance.
438.
by Skinney 11y ago
Do you have an example of such a schema language?
439.
by Skinney 11y ago
Transit also allows you to use msgpack, but JSON is more performant on the web. Another feature Transit has is that it caches identical keys (can also cache values with some additional code), giving you a smaller footprint.
440.
by Skinney 11y ago
I'm Norwegian, and here we have two parties who advocate a six-hour workday. One of the parties wants a six-hour workday with pay compensation, meaning we still pay them for eight-hour days even if they only work six-hours. I'm no
441.
by Skinney 11y ago
True, but object pools enables you to reuse objects, which in turn allows you to avoid or postpone GC (if done correctly).
442.
by Skinney 11y ago
It's even easier in a GC based system.
443.
by Skinney 11y ago
So Go's GC spent 1ms per MB?
444.
by Skinney 11y ago
Two things you get wrong here: 1. Collection cannot happen at any time. It's not like the GC just decides to do a collection. It happens on allocation. If you don't allocate, you don't collect. 2. Most garbage collectors don&
445.
by Skinney 11y ago
You loose the predictability if you get longer pause-times. Memory leaks can also severely hurt development time when you spend days or weeks chasing down memory leaks (personal experience). You're not immune to memory leaks (space lea
446.
by Skinney 11y ago
I tried making a double-linked list in Rust the other day. I found it hard to do without resorting to 'unsafe' code. I don't think a datastructure like HAMT would be a walk in the park either. The thing about GC is that it ma
447.
by Skinney 11y ago
You're comparing libraries here. There are libraries in Java which are not over-engineered. That being said, even if all Java libraries were over-engineered, it would not make you correct. Correctly crafted abstractions makes you more
448.
by Skinney 11y ago
A simple system can solve complicated things. When Rich Hickey talks about simple, he is referring to tight coupling, "death by specificity" and hard to understand concurrency. Having a system that does multiple things, isn't
449.
by Skinney 11y ago
Why not?
450.
by Skinney 11y ago
I thought you were speaking about different strategies, but in this case you're describing three different stages of an overall landing strategy. That doesn't sound complex.

More ›