James, your tone was unfortunate, but I do want do defend your position *a little*.
Projects like ClojureScript (and CoffeeScript) -- and GWT and Vaadin for that matter -- come from a certain anti-JavaScript attitude. Though I sympathize, I would like to encourage all the JavaScript haters to give JavaScript another chance. The C-syntax isn't great, but the language itself shares with Lisps a minimalist core and the ability to be truly multi-paradigm. If you like JS, you may find yourself not *needing* something like ClojureScript, CoffeeScript, etc. (Although, James, the fact that you and I don't need or want it should not cause us any disappointment with its existence! For die-hard JS haters, ClojureScript is terrific.) jQuery is not so much an elephant as it is a mammoth. It was one of the first clientside-JS frameworks to reach a broad audience, but it also one of the worst. It incorporates so many terrible JS practices, performs miserably, and really can make anyone dislike JS. People have mentioned other clientside frameworks. Let me mention also Ext JS, which I believe knocks the socks off the rest. It is crafted with a real appreciation of JS, and that love may rub off you a little as you work with it. And I'll also mention Prudence, which was announced on the list this week: http://threecrickets.com/prudence/ Prudence lets you mix both Clojure and JS (via Rhino) code on the server, and also features good integration with Ext JS. It could be a good platform for Clojure web development warriors to hone their JS chops. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of Prudence.) -Tal On Jul 24, 10:19 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
