odoyle-rules VS biff

If you're going down this route I'd second the recommendation for O'Doyle Rules. (Haven't used it since I switched away from SPAs altogether, but when I was investigating stuff in that space, O'Doyle appeared to be taking the "correct approach" from what I could tell.)

That's what this tiny library does https://github.com/oakes/odoyle-rules

Reactive updates is the big one, in my opinion. DataScript is a triumph and arguably is the reason why so many note-taking tools (Roam, Athens, Logseq, etc) are written in Clojure. But there are so many cases where it would be nice to react when some set of entities is changed.

I think what we need is to figure out how to combine DataScript with a rules engine. I'm wrote a rules engine and made a writeup that compares the two together: "Using O'Doyle Rules as a poor man's DataScript" https://github.com/oakes/odoyle-rules/blob/master/bench-src/...

Subscribing to individual entities is nice but with a rules engine you have so much more fine-grained control over your reactions. And with the RETE algorithm this can be done efficiently. Most libraries in this space just ignore it and make their own ad-hoc solution -- an informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of a rules engine.

Odoyle-rules lets you write rules (forwards chaining) engine that you can run on client and server. There are a couple ways you can twist that idea to achieve a more unified system.

I suspect it'd be too much of a mismatch to be useful, but i haven't thought about it enough. I think a more promising idea is to try implementing a database with o'doyle. I wrote about my first attempt here: Using O'Doyle Rules as a poor man's DataScript Right now it would be too inefficient for large data sets because it has to constantly rebuild its index but i think with some small changes i could improve that and basically turn o'doyle into a tool for creating databases that come with reactivity for free.

No doubt there's a runtime cost in joining the facts together, so naturally a system that lumps facts together into records (like clara) will have to do fewer joins, and should be faster. I figured out that i could at least deduplicate my joins with derived facts as i explained here, which ended up being a really big perf boost. But there's still a tradeoff, and one where almost everyone should favor flexibility, i think.

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...