I was just telling a local ios dev there's like five guys using clojure + objective-c. To me it's impressive. To them, well, I don't know what they'd think :-).
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Mike Fikes <mikefi...@me.com> wrote: > Right, Gary, > > Initially I simply wrote exported functions. > > The motivation for experimenting with protocols is so that I can write a > ClojureScript protocol that mimics, say the iOS UITableViewDataSource > Objective-C @protocol. Then, with that in place, I can write ClojureScript > reifications of that protocol to be passed back to Objective-C. It is then > a simple matter on the Objective-C side to make that reification *be* a > UITableView's dataSource delegate (with the help of a little reusable > wrapper Obj-C object around the JSValue.) > > In addition to perhaps keeping things tidy (keeping like methods > together), it makes it easier to pass multiple @protocol instances back to > iOS. (Imagine the case of two or more table views on one iOS screen, each > with their own distinct ClojureScriipt implementation.) > > Also, a lot of this ends up being boilerplate that needs to only be > written once, and then, I recoup the costs of fleshing out this plumbing by > simply spitting out a (reify ... ) form whenever needed. > > Arguably, none of this is required because all of the > UITableViewDataSource methods have the tableView as the first argument, > which could be used by straightforward exported functions to dispatch or > otherwise switch to the right implementation, which could in turn be a > reified protocol. It just seems that, since Objective-C *wants* an object > as a dataSource, that it would be interesting to try to satisfy that need > (more or less directly) using the facilities available in ClojureScript. > > I'll ditch all of this when Apple introduces FunctionalSwift along with > functional APIs, and the Clojure(Swift) compiler targets that new language. > :) > > - Mike > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:48:33 PM UTC-4, Gary Trakhman wrote: >> >> 'any problem.. fixed.. by another layer of indirection' >> >> You could also just make exportable functions that call the protocols, >> keeping them more as impl-details, core.cljs does this, and you gain things >> like varargs (hmm, do protocol-varargs work on cljs? nope: >> http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJS-362 ) >> > -- > 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 > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','clojure%2bunsubscr...@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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
