The quiescent readme provides a lot of specific information about the comparison:
https://github.com/levand/quiescent#comparison-with-om FWIW, I'd encourage you to make the investment and learn Om. It doesn't take long before the stuff that you're not understanding at first glance seems trivial. On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:18:38 AM UTC-6, Ahmad Hammad wrote: > 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.
