I'm not against sugar, but let's go there when everyone is excited about
the fundamentals :)


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Mike Haney <[email protected]> wrote:

> IMO, you definitely have your priorities straight, and I would question
> whether Om ever needs to add a lot of sugar.  When building any non-trivial
> app, you will most likely end up creating your own abstractions anyway.
> On Jan 28, 2014 7:59 PM, "David Nolen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> People should implement sugar if they feel so inclined. Om is not mature
>> enough that I want to spend time supporting extra stuff when the library is
>> evolving so rapidly. Keeping docstrings and tutorials in sync and fielding
>> questions is keeping me plenty busy :)
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Conrad Barski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it wrong to wish "component" worked like this?
>>>
>>> (component (render []
>>>                    (div nil "Hello There!")))
>>>
>>> (component (render-state [state]
>>>                          (div nil "Hello There!"))
>>>
>>> (component (will-mount [_]
>>>                 (js/console.log "mounting!"))L
>>>            (render []
>>>                 (div nil "Hello There!")))
>>>
>>> ...I could see the appeal of the current "component" macro before
>>> render-state was introduced... I can also see the appeal of using a raw
>>> "Reify", but given that all the Om interfaces have a single member
>>> function, having to write "IWillMount (will-mount [] ...))" etc is starting
>>> to feel like java boilerplate
>>>
>>> (but maybe such a macro will interfere with other features that I'm
>>> overlooking)
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>> your first post.
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "ClojureScript" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojurescript/pj6UwzP9QL4/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to