On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:51:14 AM UTC+2, Jiyin Yiyong wrote:
> I don't like the way of writing `x.assoc(null, 'foo', 'bar')` by myself. Also
> I don't people would accept that.
>
I wouldn't as well, but that was an example to show that you can use CLJS code
directly without modifying it in any way.
import { assoc } from "shadow-cljs/cljs.core";
assoc(null, "foo", "bar");
also works. assoc is an ugly example because of the leading null but it is the
shortest form to replace the CLJS {} empty map literal. {} would mean empty JS
object which doesn't work with assoc.
> I see the problem now. ClojureScript compilers may have tricky behaviors that
> make it different from CoffeeScript's compiling processes.
>
The compiler is pretty straightforward actually, the tricky parts are the
version conflicts. If there was a way to ensure that everything always used the
exact some compiler configuration/version this would be possible, but there is
not AFAICT.
> Putting `x.cljs` files in npm is fine, it's just slower. To me compiling
> ClojureScript is always slower, I already accepted that.
>
[:script] Build completed. (23 files, 1 compiled, 0 warnings, 0.12s)
I think 0.12s is pretty fast. That is running in --dev mode recompiling one
changed file with hot-reload enabled.
Of course it is slower if you always run "shadow-cljs --once" which includes
starting the JVM each time. "shadow-cljs --dev" will be substantially faster
when re-compiling.
>
> I think here are may main concerns:
>
>
> * in js projects, we regard code in `node_modules` are modules instead of
> source code. For web projects using Webpack, I would prefer using a
> 'compiled/' folder to hold the code and then config `resolve.alias` to make
> sure I import the code with `require('cljs/foo.bar.core')`.
> https://webpack.js.org/configuration/resolve/
>
Not sure what you mean. Where is the difference in putting code into
node_modules or compiled then using webpack? The behavior is identical, the
node_modules version just doesn't need the resolve.alias? Both versions require
that you have your code compiled before running webpack, which directory you
load them from should be automatic?
> * For nodejs projects, somehow I can accept the solution that we use
> `require('../../compiled/foo.bar.core')`. But I guess it may bring problems,
> which makes your `shadow-cljs` solution a better choice...
>
Yes, I hate relative paths. Actually the output folder where things end up is a
config option. So if you really wanted to have your compiled folder that can be
done. I just don't see an upside to it.
>
> * does shadow-devtools compiled cljs files incrementally? If it does, Webpack
> may use it to hot replace module.
>
Yes, incrementally. Don't know anything about HMR but shadow-devtools already
has hot-reloading (ala figwheel) built-in. I just didn't enable it yet because
other things were more important.
Can't tell if Webpack HMR would work since I have never used it.
Thanks for the feedback, I hope I lessened your concerns.
Keep it coming.
Remember: this is evolving as we discuss it, I have no idea what JS devs want
so without feedback I'll be building what I want. That may or may not align.
--
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ClojureScript" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojurescript+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to clojurescript@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
