vanilla-teuxdeux VS reagent

A few years back I stumbled into something a bit more complex, still done in pure js, just for the hell of it: https://github.com/morris/vanilla-todo

And then wrote my own version, with code a lot closer to modern react, with undo/redo and other niceties - https://github.com/ivank/vanilla-teuxdeux

And what I leaned is that is astonishingly easy to write code that would be understandable to people coming from the redux crowd. Maybe that’s because redux is just such a simple concept in and off itself - a glorified switch on a big object. And it’s also quite easy to hack a simple version of vdom to make it all work.

What’s missing from all those vanilla js efforts though turned out to be testability. There is a ton of code in the modern js world just to allow you to mock/test your components, and thats for me the real tragedy of vanilla js.

I have no idea why W3C crowd have not invested into standardizing js tests in all these years…

Kinda like restarting windows to fix it, rather than figuring out whats wrong.

And you could get quite far that way. 37signal’s basecamp was like that - an html app with vanilla js sprinkled throughout. Worked great.

But there is a limit in complexity. JS and html are great for building websites, but if you want to build an actual application, you need to be really clever and accept a lot of limitations. React just lifts the ceiling of what you can do, without being all to complicated.

And you can use the technics of react without react itself too, once you understand what it is all about - https://github.com/ivank/vanilla-teuxdeux

Recently I went on a deep dive to test for myself if it’s even possible to write a modern looking web application with no build tools or dependencies, and turns out its very doable - https://github.com/ivank/vanilla-teuxdeux

Web tech has gone a long way and gives us a ton of stuff for free, without the need to reimplement it all in JS. Though the apis themselves are often rather awkward.

Sadly, the biggest missing piece in all of it though is testing.

Hah last year I did my case study of building an app with only web tech - no dependencies, build steps etc. - https://github.com/ivank/vanilla-teuxdeux

Figured out virtual dom is the one big missing piece to make webdev workable without any dependencies at all.

I can see other people are getting to similar conclusions:)

Generating `HTML` from lisps has poisoned any other approach for me, see for example https://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/html-writing/, https://reagent-project.github.io/, and https://edicl.github.io/cl-who/

Hiccup syntax for Clojure uses hash maps (curly braces) for attrs, e.g. `{:style {:background "red" :margin "1em"}`

See Reagent which uses Hiccup synta: https://reagent-project.github.io/

    (defn simple-component []

* Single-Page App: shadow-cljs for the build concerns (https://github.com/thheller/shadow-cljs), Reagent with Re-frame for complex/large app (https://reagent-project.github.io and https://github.com/day8/re-frame). Even if we now prefer using HTMX (https://htmx.org) and server-side rendering (Hiccup way of manipulating HTML is just amazing, https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup).

The API documentation lists the most commonly and rarely used parts before going into detail and there are many usage examples.

Reagent has a nice intro tutorial (classic todo-app): http://reagent-project.github.io and many other helpful tutorials and resources for beginners: https://cljdoc.org/d/reagent/reagent/1.2.0/doc/documentation...

However, since Reagent is still stuck with class-components for more complex behavior and relies on Hiccup, which is nice but has a performance cost compared to pure React, I am unsure about its future. Like some others in the Clojure community, I have moved to thin React wrappers like Helix and use Refx to integrate those with re-frame. It may be a bit confusing right now for beginners since there is no “golden path”.

Also, unfortunately, many smaller libraries are poorly documented and it seems like it is expected from the developer to dig into the source code to find out what’s going on.

What I found the most difficult as a beginner was how to setup a project in ClojureScript in the first place, like all the configuration in shadow-cljs, how it interacts with deps.edn, how it integrates with npm, the REPL, etc. But dev/build config has always been a weak spot for me, so it might be just that.

Overall, I still very much enjoy working with Clojure(Script), more than in any other language. Anyone who likes Lisps and functional programming should give it a try (and be sure to watch Rich Hickeys amazing talks!).

have you tried cljs and reagent? it’s a different vibe.

my bootstrap: https://github.com/nathants/aws-gocljs

the project: https://reagent-project.github.io/

Clojure people have been doing this for a decade or so. It’s really so much better to work with. All started with Hiccup and when React came along you got Reagent and many more developments building on the idea.

> But Reagent supports functional components as well, with hooks and all.

I addressed this already: while reagent is able to emit function components, there is a performance penalty to this.[1]

> I also very much like Hiccup, and so do many of us, because code is data and data is code, and Helix has decided not to support that.

Hiccup is convenient to write, but it is a constant run-time cost and a significant storage cost given that you have to store long series of constructors to cljs.core.PersistentVector in your bundle, have the JS runtime actually construct the vector, then pass it through a Hiccup interpreter to finally produce DOM nodes and throw away the persistent vector, only to repeat this entire process again on re-render.[2]

> Helix has decided not to support that.

That is simply not true. From the Helix documentation[2],

> If you want to use libraries like sablono, hicada or even hx hiccup parser, you can easily add that by creating a custom macro.

These are all Hiccup interpreters you can readily use.

IME there is very little difference between using the $ macro in Helix and writing Hiccup. I do not really miss Hiccup when I use Helix, and you still have data as code ;)

While this is from an unrelated project, there are benchmarks[3] done against Reagent that demonstrate the sheer overhead it has. In practice it is not a big problem if you rarely trigger a re-render, but otherwise it is a non-trivial cost, and if you want to use modern React features (like Suspense), there is a lot of r/as-element mingling going on, converting cases, etc. that simply make Reagent feel more tedious to use than Helix.

Also, the newer UIx2, which largely borrows from Helix, is "3.2x faster than Reagent" according to one of the contributors.[4]

I think it'd be worthwhile to benchmark all of these libraries against each other and record the data in one place. Maybe I'll get around to doing it this weekend :)

---

[1] https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent/blob/master/doc/R...

[2] https://github.com/lilactown/helix/blob/master/docs/faq.md#w...

[3] https://github.com/roman01la/uix#benchmarks

[4] https://github.com/pitch-io/uix/pull/12

Reagent is peak React. All the good stuff without any of the hook and readability problems the article describes.

No affiliation, happy user for years.

https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent