This seems like a nice state of the art improvement to native development... When I get around to trying out some native I'll definitely start here. Thanks once again David for your contributions to the ecosystem...amazing!
It’s just a hard sell, I’ve tried a lot and usually I can get approval in very small parts but people are very reluctant to change. And typescript was adopted because people can use “any” types so it gets out of their way, this is very different, and glueing a ts codebase and cljs together is doable but quite a pain in the ass
I agree with David, coding is just not interactive enough. But also those percentages make me sad, given that every option below Typescript is superior to Typescript, Clojurescript, Elm, ReasonML, Purescript are all superior to Typescript and still Typescript is the dominant.
okay i am a little confused why you would use react native with clojurescript rather than just clojure. since that can run natively on andriod is it because this is a crossplatform app ?
Thank you for pointing this out! We've applied an edit to this video to cut out the short period of time where David's audio dropped out. The changes should be processed shortly.
You could possibly argue that re-frame is a framework for the very specific thing it does, but it's definitely not an app framework in the way, say, Fulcro is.
@@henrikeneroth how so? It provides a lot of structure and a lot of functionality around event dispatching and handling, coeffects, effects and subscriptions. It’s definitely not something I’d consider lightweight and it definitely fits the “we call you” definitions that people like to use for frameworks. Using just reagent I’d count as not using a framework, but re-frame i definitely consider one due to how much structure it gives you. This isn’t a negative about re-frame btw, I love re-frame and use it very heavily myself.
@@guywithknife Yeah, perhaps. But I think if re-frame was sold as a framework to someone not coming from Clojure, they would be surprised at the amount of things it doesn't do out of the box. At least if by "framework", they were expecting Django or RoR. I guess it's a framework if React or Svelte are frameworks.
@@henrikeneroth sure, it’s not a full featured does everything framework, more likethe core of one. It’s not just a simple library of functions though, it imposes a bunch of structure and it’s not thaaat different from something like redux or even angular in terms of scope
@@guywithknife Again, fair enough. But I think Reagent does more exotic things with React than re-frame does with Reagent. It's basically just an event system around a reactive atom.
@@goodnight_noom Ha ha, I appreciate your humor, sir. Nevertheless, JS won't be a typed language, go Haskell to realize how far TS from that. JS is more of LISP, and so it is symbolic by design.
@@KotoOo Well, go Lisp to see how far JS is from it. Lisp is strongly typed (just not statically typed) and has great metaprogramming capabilities. =) But anyway, Purescript (or ReScript in a pinch) is the way to go if you want a proper type system for web dev.
@@KotoOo Typed features in JS are halfway finalized. The goal with TS from the very start was to a) give people a decent technology that's best supported by Microsoft's own tooling and b) steadily integrate TS features to the ES spec so that Microsoft doesn't have to keep supporting another set of projects but make a profit nonetheless. JS was indeed originally meant to be a LISP but Java-loving executives pulled some strings and now we have to deal with an abomination of a language with subpar oop and subpar functional features. The oop part is getting special treatment in the new standards and almost catching up with other oop languages. JS was, at absolutely not point in its history, popular or universal because of it's technological merits. Pre-2015 it was head-to-toe a toy language. All worthwhile innovations in that language are rooted in modern times and remain handicapped by the obnoxious backwards compatibility requirements of the web.
