On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Dan Holmsand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 jan 2014, at 20:50, David Nolen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Dan Holmsand <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, that depends on your definition of "modular", doesn't it :) >> > > If I can't include somebody's component and apply time management to it, > that's sounds unambiguously "non-modular" with respect to *time management*. > > > I meant that you may not *want* to let "time management" of one component > influence undo functionality of another. I think there is value in having > both "integrated modules" (w.r.t for example time management), and > "isolated modules", and that the line between the two may not always be > very clear. > Yes and the Om approach doesn't preclude that in anyway. The whole idea in Om is for an applications programmers to be able dictate time management, not components themselves. > Oooh, I didn't in any way mean to say that Om is anything but extremely > cool. The invention of a whole new way of handling state in client apps > doesn't happen every day. Probably not even every decade. > > I'm just trying to defend my little creation :) > I think we can discuss the pluses and minuses of approaches without taking it personally ;) Reagent is certainly more approachable, has features Om does not, and certainly can be used in many fantastic applications that don't want or need what Om hopes to provide. David -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
