On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:42:47 PM UTC, Dein Diener wrote: > Hi, i am new to clojurescript and want to build a small webapp with it to > learn. I took a detailed look at the todo sample-app of 1. om and 2. > quiescent and found the second one (quiescent) easier to understand... so i > would like to go with quiescent. But aware of the fact, that Om is much > "bigger"... my question is: what does Om have that quiescent misses ? Thanks > ;)
Om certainly has a learning curve and can be frustrating at times however I believe it is designed to achieve two things: 1) help you build decoupled and reusable components. You can certainly do this with the other libraries but then it is entirely up to you to architect your app & components such a way, so in that sense, it simplifies things for you in the long run. 2) make the most of persistent data structures to give you performance out of the box. -- 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.
