Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
day8.github.io
Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#2Re-frame is a layer on top of reagent, which is an API for using React in cljs. If you want to use react, you can also just directly use reagent which is the preference of many in the community. The boilerplate and verbosity required for reframe could be overkill for many small projects, especially for solo developers, where pure reagent often thrives. However reframe’s restrictions can be helpful in team environments.
The library github page is an entertaining display of equal parts vanity and hyperbole: https://github.com/day8/re-frame/
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#3I really dislike the documentation of re-frame.
The concepts are quite simple, but the docs explain them in a really confusing and buzzword heavy way.
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#4Re-frame is a layer on top of reagent, which is an API for using React in cljs. If you want to use react, you can also just directly use reagent which is the preference of many in the community. The boilerplate and verbosity required for reframe could be overkill for many small projects, especially for solo developers, where pure reagent often thrives. However reframe’s restrictions can be helpful in team environment…
Re-frame really doesn't add much in addition to Reagent, I really don't understand its popularity.
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#5Re-frame is a layer on top of reagent, which is an API for using React in cljs. If you want to use react, you can also just directly use reagent which is the preference of many in the community. The boilerplate and verbosity required for reframe could be overkill for many small projects, especially for solo developers, where pure reagent often thrives. However reframe’s restrictions can be helpful in team environment…
Re-frame really doesn't add much in addition to Reagent, I really don't understand its popularity.
This comes up often enough that there is an FAQ entry:
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#6I really dislike the documentation of re-frame. The concepts are quite simple, but the docs explain them in a really confusing and buzzword heavy way.
Hmm. In my experience, this an unusual opinion (to me, the author). Over the years the re-frame documentation has been the most praised part of the project.
Could you point out the area which you found unnecessarily difficult, and I'll happily review it. Could you also include your background, so I know where you are coming from? The docs are a little oriented towards JS developers coming across, but perhaps you are already very experienced with Clojure and data-oriented design, which makes it seem like the concepts more obvious. Maybe.
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#7I would love to try out all these cool alternatives to pure JS plus Vue or React, but at what point is this a good idea for a commercial production application?
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#8I really dislike the documentation of re-frame. The concepts are quite simple, but the docs explain them in a really confusing and buzzword heavy way.
Hmm. In my experience, this an unusual opinion (to me, the author). Over the years the re-frame documentation has been the most praised part of the project. Could you point out the area which you found unnecessarily difficult, and I'll happily review it. Could you also include your background, so I know where you are coming from? The docs are a little oriented towards JS developers coming across, but perhaps you are…
Said with love, happy re-frame user: many developers want to be able to match use cases to docs and code examples as quickly and directly as possible. The re-frame docs contain a lot of very verbose motivation and philosophy (over multiple pages) which while useful context, obfuscates the practical content. All of re-frame’s philosophy would be immediately evident from some code examples on the top level readme on GitHub.
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#9Re-frame is a layer on top of reagent, which is an API for using React in cljs. If you want to use react, you can also just directly use reagent which is the preference of many in the community. The boilerplate and verbosity required for reframe could be overkill for many small projects, especially for solo developers, where pure reagent often thrives. However reframe’s restrictions can be helpful in team environment…
Re-frame really doesn't add much in addition to Reagent, I really don't understand its popularity.
I personally prefer reagent directly over re-frame. I've heard some Clojure developers express frustrations with the typical idioms that Re-frame promotes. I can see some value in how it organizes some things, but you can do the same thing directly with Reagent far more quickly. The difference is that in Re-frame you only really have one way of doing things, and that consistency can be good for a team. But it does require extra development time.
Re: Re-Frame: Build web apps in ClojureScript and React
#10I really dislike the documentation of re-frame. The concepts are quite simple, but the docs explain them in a really confusing and buzzword heavy way.
Hmm. In my experience, this an unusual opinion (to me, the author). Over the years the re-frame documentation has been the most praised part of the project. Could you point out the area which you found unnecessarily difficult, and I'll happily review it. Could you also include your background, so I know where you are coming from? The docs are a little oriented towards JS developers coming across, but perhaps you are…
I’m another person, but: when I initially read an old version of it (about 4 years ago) I liked the comprehensiveness but disliked the tone. Perhaps due to not being a native english speaker, it distracted me and made it harder to get the point.
Quickly peering it it seems that it has been improved, although some things there remind me of what I felt, such as:
McCoy might report "It's MVC, Jim, but not as we know it". And you would respond "McCoy, you trouble maker, why even mention an OO pattern? re-frame is a functional framework."