Clojurians Log v2

sova: there doesn’t seem to be anything “special” about that website. This is not the argument “you can’t do X with re-frame”. Anything that can be done with Om.Next, absolutely can be built using Re-frame. I need specific reasons why Om.Next may be better than Re-frame. I personally (after using Om.Next for months) can say: I do feel it’s nicer and switching back to Re-frame totally feels to me like a backward step. But even after months I still failed to gain expertise required to defend the point in argumentation about the merits of choosing Om.Next

I would definitely choose Om.Next for my own projects. But how do I convince people that this is indeed much better approach than Re-frame’s?

It seems like the fact that the expertise was so difficult to gain speaks volumes though. From what I've seen, the two frameworks are approximately equivalent in expressivity for those who have affinity to one or the other. The biggest difference is that re-frame is clear after a day to almost everyone, and I can explain my application clearly to everyone, if it's written in re-frame. I know of two kinds of programmers when it comes to om.next. 1. smart people who admit to not understanding om.next. 2. smart people who understand om.next and love it, but can't explain it clearly to anyone.

As best as I can tell, the true distinction comes down to what tools of thought accommodate one's established ways of thinking. And I don't think I'm being uncharitable in saying that it's a rare kind of mind that can be successfully extended by om.next (at least in its current state of development and documentation). This makes it better suited to solo projects than team projects (including open source projects), because it's important that teams be able to communicate in their shared code.

LOL What about those of us who love it, but don't feel they understand it?

Hey everyone, I’d really like to get into om, however I do not know react. I do know JavaScript pretty well, and am not averse to learning react, however I’d rather just get right into om if I can. I’ve searched around the interwebs for answers and most people seem to say that no, you can just jump into om, however I am a bit skeptical…

I would say you can definitely jump straight into om and pick up bits of react along the way. You really only need to understand the basics of react i.e. the main lifecycle methods and the difference between state and props.

Have you given any thought to untangled, middelway since it simplifies om-next flow a bit ?

I use Untangled everytime I have to use Om, and I love it, it's my favorite pick by far for front-end development 🙂

well, I think it's hard if you have to figure out for yourself, but if you have at least 1 person on the team that knows how to use it, teaching that to someone else is not that hard, here at company I used Om.next + Untangled in a hackaton project with someone else that has almost no experience in front-end at all, and just basic on Clojure, and in 2 days he was able to understand how to change things

I am trying to use "placeholder nodes" (https://github.com/omcljs/om/issues/823#issuecomment-260164185) as a workaround for multiple child components that need different views of a parent attribute (https://github.com/omcljs/om/issues/823) . Everything (mutations, path metadata, component refresh etc.) works correctly in the subcomponent, except for dynamic queries and the use of set-query! in the subcomponent. The use of set-query! results in a

Cannot read property 'call' of null

@sova For us, building <http://pyroclast.io|pyroclast.io>, pathopt or "incremental rendering" is a huge win.

It really raises the ceiling on when we need to start worrying about performance.