Google Groups

Re: Alright, fess up, who's unhappy with clojurescript?

James Keats Jul 24, 2011 3:34 PM
Posted in group: Clojure

Well I'm very very sorry if the intent of my post was misunderstood or
I articulated it poorly, but I would like to emphasize, Rich, that I'm
a big fan of yours and in no way intended to exhaust you, I was merely
and honestly voicing my concerns, just like in a previous thread I
have quoted you time and again and voiced my agreement with and
admiration of your work and positions with regard to clojure itself. I
have watched all your talks on vimeo several times, and read most of
what I could find online of interviews with you, and with regard to
clojurescript I did read the rationale, I watched your talk twice and
carefully, and I had the google closure book for almost a year now,
which includes a reprint of the article you linked to and that I had
previously linked to this this thread.

"forking" was in no way a threat, but a suggested possibility to see
what everyone here thought, whether there were others like me, who
aren't fond of google closure, who perceive a demand for it, as a non-
gclosure alternative that'd be part of the clojure toolset.
Unfortunately my intent seems to have been misunderstood or I'd
miscommunicated it, whichever, I find regrettable.

On Jul 24, 10:28 pm, Rich Hickey <> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:19 am, James Keats <> wrote:
> > Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed.
> I'll make sure you get a refund then.
> Seriously, this is like being disappointed an action movie was an
> action movie instead of a comedy. Your expectations are a complete
> mismatch for the intentions of ClojureScript.
> > 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.
> Actually, it's too JavaScript. Some JS proponents want to disavow its
> pseudo class model, but it certainly is part of the design of
> JavaScript. And it has some particular advantages over the other
> strategies, as outlined here:
> > It's not idiomatic JavaScript.
> There's no such thing as idiomatic JavaScript. There are a lot of
> different conventions used by different libraries.
> > 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.
> In the middle of what? I look at ClojureScript code and it looks like
> Clojure to me. Google Closure is under, and it is no more annoying
> there than Java is under Clojure - an implementation detail, and a
> rich source of production-quality code.
> > 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.
> Should it be the purpose of a new language like ClojureScript to
> orient itself around the realities of currently popular JavaScript
> libraries? I think not. If you want jQuery as the center of your
> universe, JavasScript is your language - good luck with it. I see
> jQuery as a tool to be leveraged when appropriate (i.e. rarely in
> large programs), not an architectural centerpiece.
> > Jquery is huge in its community and plugins, and it has tons of books
> > and tutorials.
> So what? Those people are satisfied by, and not leaving, JavaScript,
> and I'm fine with that.
> > Then, the Google Closure compiler is a moot point.
> If you seriously cannot see the benefits of Google's compiler then you
> are not the target audience for ClojureScript. In any case, for those
> interested there is an argument for Google's approach in the
> rationale, as well as this page on the wiki:
> > I'm tempted to "fork" clojurescript and redo it in javascript perhaps
> > so that seamless interop with jquery would be the main priority.
> Is that a threat, or a promise? I suggest you start by writing up a
> rationale like this one:
> making your intentions and the superiority of your approach clear.
> Then prepare yourself for messages from people who don't bother to
> read or understand it.
> Messages like yours make creating things and releasing them for free a
> really exhausting endeavor.
> Good luck with your fork - please start a separate mailing list for
> discussions about it.
> Rich
> p.s. note to others - if you have read the docs and have honest
> questions about the approach, I and others would be happy to explain.
> But we could do without messages about disappointment, threats of
> forks etc. ClojureScript is an action movie, and we're interested in
> helping people kick butt.