"Why should we care what kind of Javascript ClojureScript generates, as long as it's correct and performant? The whole point of the project is to allow us to write Clojure rather than Javascript!"
James, you do get this point, right? Just like GWT allows you to program in Java to write JavaScript, and get the 'benefits' of not having to actually write JS to develop web clients, ClojureScript allows you to program in Clojure to write JavaScript that CloSure likes. If you like programming in Clojure than you *should* appreciate this point. If you don't, than it seems to me that you are just picking a fight to pick a fight. On Jul 24, 3:09 pm, Mark Rathwell <mark.rathw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >I think it's a bit absurd, folks, to criticize Java's OOP as > >incidental complexity, too much ceremony, and even suggest in the Joy > >of Clojure that a Steve Yegge's Universal Design Pattern and prototype > >pattern a la Javascript could be married to clojure's in the chapter > >that discuss namespaces, multimethods, protocols and datatypes, and > >then turn around and implicitly declare to the world with the release > >of clojurescript "oh noes! if we're gonna do anything substantial then > >this doesn't scale! we need a Java like solution!" > > From this quote (and many others) of yours: " I always advocate that people > adopt a managerial/business-case approach.", it seemed as though you value > maturity and a proven track record, both in programmers and in technology > stacks. Google's library is the result of many years in battle with large > scale javascript applications, and it is a proven solution. To me it seems > a bit absurd to champion Java because it is a proven, robust option, then > belittle Closure because it isn't the flavor of javascript you like. > > In any case, from the coding point of view, you will be writing code in > Clojure (with a "j"), only using the functionality of google's library, in > the much the same way as you use the functionality of the JDK, so I'm not > sure exactly what it is you are wanting with ClojureScript and jQuery. > > - Mark > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:25 PM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Mark Rathwell <mark.rathw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything > > > should be more like Java? Now you're arguing that Google Closure is bad > > > because it has some similarities to Java development (mainly verbosity > > and > > > documentation). I'm honestly not sure if you are just trying to be > > > controversial, or to appear smart, but I'll bite (time for a break > > anyways). > > > > Closure is not idomatic javascript: > > > --- > > > > Do you have an actual argument from experience here, or are you > > > regurgitating what you've read in articles like [1]. Is CoffeeScript > > > idiomatic javascript? How about Dojo? SproutCore? jQuery? What > > exactly > > > is idiomatic javascript? > > > > vs. jQuery: > > > --- > > > > jQuery is awesome for adding dynamicity and ajaxy stuff to page based web > > > apps, I don't think anyone argues that. And it is extrememly simple, not > > > even requiring the user to know any javascript to use it. This is why it > > is > > > so (deservedly) popular. > > > > Large scale, single page applications are a different thing than page > > based > > > sites, however. Writing these types of apps with only jQuery quickly > > turns > > > to spaghetti. There are some nice libraries/frameworks out there, like > > > Backbone and Underscore, that do a very nice job of making it cleaner and > > > scalable. These are all still fairly young though, to be fair. > > > > In the realm of proven environments for large scale, client side > > javascript > > > development, you have Dojo and Google Closure, and to some degree > > SproutCore > > > and Cappuccino. If you can point me to larger scale apps than GMail, > > Google > > > Docs, etc., written using jQuery, I will gladly have a look. > > > > Once you get to that scale, you really needing a way to organize code, to > > > package and load modules, etc. Dojo and Closure offer a pretty nice, and > > > proven, system for this. > > > > So, yes, I would have preferred Dojo, because I am more familiar. But to > > be > > > fair, Closure is very similar, is a very complete library, and has very > > good > > > documentation and examples for the most part. > > > On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Mark Rathwell <mark.rathw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything > > > should be more like Java? Now you're arguing that Google Closure is bad > > > because it has some similarities to Java development (mainly verbosity > > and > > > documentation). I'm honestly not sure if you are just trying to be > > > controversial, or to appear smart, but I'll bite (time for a break > > anyways). > > > > Closure is not idomatic javascript: > > > --- > > > I'm not "arguing that everything should be more like Java", but > > rather, if you're targetting the JVM then Java, if you're targetting > > javascript then javascript. > > > I'm aware of the article you pointed out, but no, that article is > > mostly about the implementation details within closure, which is a > > lesser concern to me. I think a good book about idiomatic javascript > > would probably be Douglass Crockford's Javascript: the Good Parts, and > > just as good if not even better is JavaScript Patterns by Stoyan > > Stefanov; emphasis on a functional programming small subset of > > javascript, using closures and prototypes, et cetera. I had been aware > > of the Google Closure library through its book, which I read when it > > first came out; I invite you to read this book. It's too Java-esque; > > java-inspired annotations, java-inspired OOP, too much complexity and > > ceremony, and the author pointedly dismisses much of the javascript > > community idioms:http://bolinfest.com/javascript/inheritance.php > > > I think it's a bit absurd, folks, to criticize Java's OOP as > > incidental complexity, too much ceremony, and even suggest in the Joy > > of Clojure that a Steve Yegge's Universal Design Pattern and prototype > > pattern a la Javascript could be married to clojure's in the chapter > > that discuss namespaces, multimethods, protocols and datatypes, and > > then turn around and implicitly declare to the world with the release > > of clojurescript "oh noes! if we're gonna do anything substantial then > > this doesn't scale! we need a Java like solution!" > > > > [1]http://www.sitepoint.com/google-closure-how-not-to-write-javascript/ > > > > - Mark > > > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Clojure" group. > > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > > your first post. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
