# mult: hypothetical clojure(script) extension for vscode


## rationale

- clojure(script) IDE experience is no minor issue - it's the thing between
you and programs

- the editor and the extension
  - should be long-term satisfactory, enjoyable and even inspiring
  - should be open source
  - should be written in clojure, or at least the extension should be
written in clojure(script)
    - for simplicity
    - for asynchrony done via processes
- the extension should
  - support multiple repl connections from one editor window
  - have a file configuration (for user and projects), where
connections and repls can be specified (to not depend on key-combo
connection sequences)
  - be simpler, code-wise and feature-wise
- making an editor in clojure is, no doubt, a goal, but the extension
for an existing editor is a logical first step
  - the work of making an extension is trasferrable even into an
editor written in clojure, so the work won't be lost
- existing editor + extension combos
  - Emacs + Cider
    - perfect, if you're into it
  - IntelliJ + Cursive
    - both closed source, Cursive comes with conditions
  - VSCode + Calva
    - can be considered the current best option
    - VSCode is the undeniable best open source editor
    - Calva works perfectly, but is written in typescript
    - nodejs runtime is undesirable, but not a problem

Should mult be made ? Critique, comments are appreciated.

Rationale can also be found here(same):


Same post can be found on a separate mailing list:


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
For more options, visit this group at
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to