Hi James, The Clojure/dev folks who built ClojureScript disagree with all of the key points of your analysis:
> Google Closure is too Java. It's not idiomatic JavaScript. If you target idiomatic JavaScript you will find yourself living in the world of JavaScript semantics. It is evident that many people want that. We don't. > Then, there's the elephant in the room, and that elephant is Jquery. JQuery is a powerful library. So is Google Closure. I don't share your certainty that JQuery is the elephant. (I don't use any JQuery apps that have the sophistication of GMail.) But in any case, we are targeting a future community, not any currently-existing one. > Then, the Google Closure compiler is a moot point. Everyone by now > already has a copy of jquery from the Google CDN and linking to it in > your code will not download it any further after your first visit to a > website that does so. In any case, it's already small and fast. This is a good argument for modest applications, and a poor argument for substantial ones. We are interested in the latter. > Then there's rhino/jvm. I would much rather an in-browser focus. Rhino is an implementation detail of the development platform. That implementation detail could and probably should change. > I'm tempted to "fork" clojurescript and redo it in javascript perhaps > so that seamless interop with jquery would be the main priority. If that is your objective, the ClojureScript codebase won't be a useful starting point. You would be better off to start from scratch. Cheers, Stu Stuart Halloway Clojure/core http://clojure.com -- 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
