On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Mike Haney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Reagent is more than just a thin veneer over React. It does quite a bit > of work, just as Om does. This is subjective, but Reagent feels more easy > than simple to me. Sometimes, that’s what you want; sometimes it’s not. > But: I’ve barely touched Reagent myself, so take that with a large grain of > salt. I’d love to hear a response from someone actually working with > Reagent. > > OK, I'll bite. I'm bothered by your use of the term "easy". As I'm sure > you know, that has a negative connotation in our community, and your > remarks seem to imply that Reagent is a toy not to be taken seriously for > non-trivial apps. That is certainly not the case. > Yeah, I don't think I said that well. In my experience, there often comes a point where trading some simplicity for some ease is a *good thing*. Sometimes a using a simple library just means pushing the complexity into your application code, and an "easy" style approach can help deal with that. Being easy can be useful, when it's not taken to extremes. I certainly didn't mean any disrespect for Reagent. All that said, I think I may misunderstand how Reagent works, so I'll gladly retract the whole statement. :) What you've said about it in this thread is far more useful than what I had to say. Peter -- Visuals: http://youtube.com/peeja Words: http://blog.peeja.com/ Conversation: (603) 548-1203 -- 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.
