News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by swannodette on Thursday December 19, 2013 @02:23PM (#6937114)
I apologize that the Om TodoMVC version is a little bit buggy at the moment, I put it together mostly to demonstrate the benefits of the React/Om model and it appears I missed a couple of TodoMVC behavior issues as they weren't important for demonstrating the approach - I'll try to clean up these annoyances later this evening.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by _sh on Thursday December 19, 2013 @07:27PM (#6939037)
Thanks for posting this. Forgive me for not looking over your code before asking: how does Om compare with Pedestal? Am I correct in thinking there is a lot of architecture overlap, with Pedestal's application state map occupying a similar role to React's virtual DOM, and mutation through message tuples in channels?

Both frameworks seem to offer similar advantages: decoupled model and view, UI state playback (VCR style) and instrumentation. How significantly do these frameworks differ? Or are we seeing different paths towards a convergence around a new set of model/view practices?

Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by ludwigvan on Friday December 20, 2013 @04:25AM (#6940641)
Yes, you are right, there are overlaps. Pedestal is undergoing a major rewrite these days, as I heard from the team at the ClojureConj. Also, Brenton Ashworth, Pedestal's developer has recently started investigating reactjs and found that it "perfectly complements the new version of Pedestal" (see his Twitter https://twitter.com/brentonashworth ) so exciting things to come!
Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by NVI on Friday December 20, 2013 @12:02AM (#6940017)
http://swannodette.github.io/todomvc/labs/architecture-examp... has "//# sourceMappingURL=app.js.map" but the file is missing.