Okay, I admit it: I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not.

I think that you're joking, but if you're not joking, well, we have different definitions of simple.

I'm not joking. Spend some effort. Challenge me. You build a UI in your favorite framework. I'll use reagent. Document the code. Compare the code then.

Dude, I've got work to do.

You threw down a URL to a framework I don't know that is apparently similar to a framework I don't use and runs on Clojure, which I don't work in and none of my codebases run in. You did that with no context or even taking the time to explain why I would do such a thing.

Objectively, there's nothing simple or expressive about the samples on their homepage. Their demos are simplistic (todo?! seriously?) and do nothing to convey why someone would express a complex web app in this manner.

It seriously looks like Matrix code to me.

So just because you don't know German and I ask you to read some German text, you will say this looks super complex, even if it's a simple line saying "Good day!".

Wow! Indeed our definitions of simple are different.

If you want to spend your days learning flavor of the minute web frameworks instead of actually building stuff, knock yourself out.

If you have anything more substantial to add to the conversation that actually relates to my original comment, I'll be here.

Well, I've built stuff in reagent, enjoyed it immensely, and been paid for it. Enjoy your jquery! (and your ignorance!)

sounds like you didn't actually understand the parents point.

I'll give it a shot if there's a stable build of the Reagent<->BrainFuck transpiler working.

Or that you need to be introduced to Reagent. Simple doesn't even begin to describe it.