biff VS component

I definitely believe Clojure needs a rails. Not only will it help beginners get started, if it can help people get started faster and build fast like Django and rails do, I think it'll help more with adoption.

Biff and fulcro seems like they have a shot at this

Biff- https://github.com/jacobobryant/biff

Fulcro - https://github.com/fulcrologic/fulcro

Jacob is doing a fantastic job with https://biffweb.com/ If the Clojure community would focus more of its manpower on such projects, then I think we can make Clojure the obvious choice to start a software business, by saving an insane amount of time. And time is by far the scarcest resource in a startup.

If you can get away with not using React, I highly recommend Biff. It uses XTDB and Rum by default but they can be swapped out pretty easily for Postgres and Reagent. I'm planning to publish some docs on how to do that when I have a chance.

The best one of these imo is https://biffweb.com

I'm also really liking the strategy of the old-school is new again with sever side rendering serving actual HTML instead of JSON for certain things, using HTMX, an example can be found here: https://biffweb.com/

Take a look at Biff project https://biffweb.com/

+1 for Malli and XT! For the relevant parts of Biff, see the example app's schema and the transaction reference docs. Biff has its own transaction format which includes schema checks via malli and various other conveniences, and it gets translated into XT's lower-level transaction format. Might provide some inspiration at least.

Rum is used throughout, though mostly via middleware[1], so you (almost) never see any calls to `rum.core/render-static-markup`. But all of the hiccup-style data structures (`[:div "foo"]`, etc) do get rendered by Rum.

htmx doesn't render anything on the backend; rather it gives the frontend more ways to interact with the backend. e.g. say you make an inline form--htmx gives you the ability to display/submit that form without refreshing the entire page, but all the html that's sent to the frontend is still getting rendered first by Rum.

[1] See https://github.com/jacobobryant/biff/blob/6353c406adef034448... and https://github.com/jacobobryant/biff/blob/6353c406adef034448...

* Lifecycle management: Mount, Integrant or Component (https://github.com/tolitius/mount https://github.com/weavejester/integrant and https://github.com/stuartsierra/component)

When you start to have multiple stateful components (the database, the HTTP server, your Redis connection, a page cache, etc.), then you'll want to use a library like component that manages their (inter-)dependencies and provides a consistent notion of lifecycle.

Today I released a new version of Reveal Pro — dev.vlaaad/reveal-pro {:mvn/version "1.3.308"} — that adds sticker integration for system libraries such as mount, component and integrant!

I agree with the main sentiment from the article. Although I do think they are discussing Inversion of control more-so than dependency injection.

One of my first languages was .net and I was never able to really understand DI in that context that well.

Actually using javascript and ducktyping made me understand what it actually was.

I remember a .net job interview where I had to write a micro-service and opted to construct the dependency graph in the main function initialising "all" the classes there. Instead of discussing the pro's and con's of that approach they berated me for not using a DI framework (No I did not land that job, but in hindsight it was the most expensive job interview I've ever had. The room was filled with 8 developers going over my code).

The main thing the article glosses over is state. something people with a functional background hide from. But if you look at something like the httpclient in .net. I think it took the .net world like 10 years to start using the httpclient properly. Scope and lifetime of those kind of objects are important. managing connection pools, retry state, throttling or the incoming http request. DI does make that kind of thing easieR (I'm not saying it makes it better)

Look at clojure's component(https://github.com/stuartsierra/component), I'm not a clojure expert by far. But it is kinda DI/IOC in a functional language.

In closing we can agree that it is underused in the right places and overused in the wrong ones.

https://github.com/stuartsierra/component#no-function-should-take-the-entire-system-as-an-argument

Yeah like I mentioned I'm not like super sold on the everything-should-be-an-actor paradigm, but I find value in DDD + a light implementation of Components (similar to stuartsierra/component).

https://github.com/stuartsierra/component for managing components lifecycles in projects