On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Colin Fleming <[email protected] > wrote:
> Google trends begs to differ: > https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=clojure%2C%20clojurescript&cmpt=q&tz= > I think extrapolating from Google trends is probably not that useful for measuring usage. > I was surprised by this because there seems to be a similar level of > traffic on the two mailing lists and ClojureScript has had a lot of great > work done on it recently, and I had put it down to the fact that Cursive > didn't have a very good CLJS REPL story. Perhaps that wasn't the reason > after all. > I know that personally there was really little incentive for me to write ClojureScript applications with Cursive until even a couple of weeks ago without a sensible REPL. But Cursive is still really not that pleasant with ClojureScript, as there are a *very* large number of distracting analysis gaps wrt. ClojureScript idioms. This would be enough for many people to stick with an Emacs/Vim workflow. I think a better metric is probably measuring downloads of something on Clojars that's going to be on many dependency graphs. https://clojars.org/cljsjs/react/versions/0.12.2-5 vs. https://clojars.org/ring/versions/1.3.2 That said, I think the surveys are likely biased towards production Clojure users where ClojureScript is probably a more useful element of the stack. For example, I would be surprised if that 50% applied to hobbyists or anyone who doesn't have the requisite JavaScript knowledge to be productive. David -- 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.
