component VS malli

* 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

Clojure's lazy sequences by default are wonderful ergonomically, but it provides many ways to use strict evaluation if you want to. They aren't really a hassle either. I've been doing Clojure for the last few years and have a few grievances, but overall it's the most coherent, well thought out language I've used and I can't recommend it enough.

There is the issue of startup time with the JVM, but you can also do AOT compilation now so that really isn't a problem. Here are some other cool projects to look at if you're interested:

Malli: https://github.com/metosin/malli

Babashka: https://github.com/babashka/babashka

Clerk: https://github.com/nextjournal/clerk

BREAKING: walking a :schema passes children instead of [id] to the walker function #884

When you get to larger, more complex validations, I'd recommend checking out Malli or Spec.

for specs, you can try malli - feels pretty well supported and full featured: https://github.com/metosin/malli (i'm not 100% sure how popular it is for others, but I use it on my personal projects)

Have you tried malli: Data-driven Schemas for Clojure/Script?

All that being said, I particularly use malli and I don't find anything to complain about. There is a very nice and sound ecosystem being built around it (malli-ts is one of my contributions to it, but still in early development stages). I highly recommend reading its README, very informative stuff.

Any large codebase can be broken up into small isolated components that can be reasoned about independently. This is how you structure Clojure projects if you want them to be maintainable. Clojure inherently encourages doing this by defaulting to immutability. The contract between components is the data being passed to the component and returned by it. Using Malli schemas at the edges of the components is a typical approach to documenting their APIs https://github.com/metosin/malli

I see the fact that people often end up creating large and tightly coupled monolithic codebases in static languages as a negative aspect of static typing. Such codebases are difficult to reason about even if you have guarantees that the types align. Ultimately, you need to understand the relationships in code, and how they relate to business logic. The more coupling an application has the harder it becomes to reason about it as a whole.

Ideally, I think applications should be structured as a bunch of Lego blocks that can be composed together. Each component should encapsulate some functionality, and then the flow of the business logic should bubble up to the top and expressed in how these components are chained together.

Uhhh spec has existed for a long time and before that, schema Nowadays we also have the excellent malli. If his codebase is full of functions where the shape of the data isn’t obvious, isn’t documented and isn’t specified in a specific/schema, that’s on him and his bad coding practices and really no different from passing data in other dynamic languages. A class by itself (without additional effort) only gives you field names.