This chimes very closely with my experience. I’m currently developing a couple of webapps for clients. In both cases, the intent is that the apps will be maintained by the clients’ own developers in the future. And in both cases I’ve chosen Reagent because I think I stand a good chance of explaining Reagent code to them. I don’t think that it would be so easy if I’d chosen Om.
I’ve not tried Quiescent, although it looks very nice from what I’ve read. -- paul.butcher->msgCount++ Silverstone, Brands Hatch, Donington Park... Who says I have a one track mind? http://www.paulbutcher.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher Skype: paulrabutcher Author of Seven Concurrency Models in Seven Weeks: When Threads Unravel http://pragprog.com/book/pb7con On 20 June 2014 at 22:21:32, Jamie Orchard-Hays ([email protected]) wrote: I've developed the same prototype with both Reagent and Om. Reagent: Very easy to grasp and build out your UI. Not a lot of pieces to think about. Lost me on the data handling. I posted a question to the owner, but never heard back: https://github.com/holmsand/reagent/issues/35 Om: Much more to get my head around to build out the UI. More LOCs. I like the Protocol approach even though you end up with more code. The hard part of Om is that there's much more to understand and keep track of (ie, in my head). The big win is that it manages the app and local state really well. (It reminds me of the Tapestry library I used 10 years ago in that there's a lot to learn up front to get going, but then you've got a lot of power.) I'm using Sablono with it. Take-away: for simpler apps than I'm building right now, I might start with Reagent. You can get moving really quickly with it. Om wins in more complex situations for me. Jamie On Jun 20, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Walter van der Laan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, June 20, 2014 4:29:38 PM UTC+2, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: >> I discovered that along with Om, there are Reagent and Quiescence. >> >> Has anyone worked with the latter alternatives, and how might I decide what >> the tradeoffs are for using each of them? > > I use Quiescent. You can read the rationale and comparison to Om and Reagent > here: https://github.com/levand/quiescent#rationale > > What I enjoy most about Quiescent is the top-down restful rendering. This is > different from developing in React, Om or Reagent as shown in this diagram: > https://github.com/levand/quiescent/blob/master/doc/diagram.png > > -- > 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. -- 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.
