As a professional JavaScripter for the past 6 years who has built his own frameworks and written considerable amounts of Prototype, MooTools, and jQuery.
I don't think jQuery is special or particularly interesting and most of the libraries around it are terrible IMO. It certainly doesn't help in building sophisticated clientside applications (if it did, why Backbone.js, why Cappuccino, why SproutCore?, etc). For simple stuff it's fine. But then so is Google Closure. I think the Clojure community can do much, much better. In fact a clientside framework could be the first Clojure killer app ... David On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed. > > First of all, congrats and good job to all involved in putting it out. > On the plus side, it's a good way to use the Google Closure javascript > platform. > > On the minus, imho, that's what's wrong with it. > > Google Closure is too Java. It's not idiomatic JavaScript. I find it > disappointing that rather than porting from a functional language like > Clojure straight to another functional language like Javascript, the > google closure with its ugly Java-isms is right there obnoxiously in > the middle. > > Then, there's the elephant in the room, and that elephant is Jquery. I > believe any targetting-javascript tool that misses out on jquery-first- > and-foremost is missing out on the realities of javascript in 2011. > Jquery is huge in its community and plugins, and it has tons of books > and tutorials. In much the same way that you can have lots of libs on > the JVM, there are lots of plugins for jquery. So much so that the > latest edition of Javascript: the Definitive Guide includes a chapter > on it; quoted: > > "Because the jQuery library has become so widely used, web developers > should be fa- > miliar with it: even if you don’t use it in your own code, you are > likely to encounter it > in code written by others." > > Then, the Google Closure compiler is a moot point. Everyone by now > already has a copy of jquery from the Google CDN and linking to it in > your code will not download it any further after your first visit to a > website that does so. In any case, it's already small and fast. > > Then there's rhino/jvm. I would much rather an in-browser focus. > > I'm tempted to "fork" clojurescript and redo it in javascript perhaps > so that seamless interop with jquery would be the main priority. > > Discuss? > > > -- > 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
