re-frame

Pros of Reagent

• Simpler and more lightweight, with a lower learning curve
• More flexible, allowing for various architectural patterns
• Closer to vanilla React, making it easier for React developers to adopt

Cons of Reagent

• Lacks built-in state management, requiring additional libraries or custom solutions
• Less opinionated, which can lead to inconsistent code organization across projects
• May require more boilerplate code for complex applications

Code Comparison

Reagent component:

(defn hello-world []
  [:div
   [:h1 "Hello, World!"]
   [:p "Welcome to Reagent"]])

Re-frame component:

(defn hello-world []
  (let [name @(re-frame/subscribe [:name])]
    [:div
     [:h1 (str "Hello, " name "!")]
     [:p "Welcome to Re-frame"]]))

Summary

Reagent is a lightweight and flexible ClojureScript wrapper for React, while Re-frame builds upon Reagent to provide a more structured, opinionated framework with built-in state management. Reagent offers simplicity and flexibility, making it suitable for smaller projects or developers who prefer more control over their application architecture. Re-frame, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive solution for larger, complex applications with its event-driven architecture and centralized state management.

Pros of Rum

• Simpler and more lightweight, with fewer concepts to learn
• More flexible, allowing for easier integration with other libraries
• Faster initial render times due to its minimalistic approach

Cons of Rum

• Less opinionated, which may lead to inconsistent application structure
• Fewer built-in features and utilities compared to re-frame
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially resulting in fewer resources and extensions

Code Comparison

re-frame:

(rf/reg-event-db
 :initialize-db
 (fn [_ _]
   {:count 0}))

(rf/reg-sub
 :count
 (fn [db]
   (:count db)))

Rum:

(rum/defc counter < rum/reactive
  []
  (let [count (rum/react (rum/cursor-in state [:count]))]
    [:div (str "Count: " count)]))

Both libraries offer reactive programming models for ClojureScript, but re-frame provides a more structured approach with its event-driven architecture, while Rum focuses on simplicity and flexibility. re-frame's code tends to be more verbose but offers clearer separation of concerns, whereas Rum's code is often more concise but may require additional organization in larger applications.

Pros of Compojure

• Lightweight and focused on routing, making it easier to learn and use for simple web applications
• Integrates well with other Ring-based libraries, allowing for a more modular approach to web development
• Has been around longer, resulting in a more mature ecosystem and extensive community resources

Cons of Compojure

• Limited to server-side routing and doesn't provide a full-stack solution like re-frame
• Lacks built-in state management capabilities, which are crucial for complex single-page applications
• Doesn't offer a standardized structure for larger applications, potentially leading to inconsistent code organization

Code Comparison

Compojure routing example:

(defroutes app-routes
  (GET "/" [] "Hello World")
  (GET "/users/:id" [id] (str "User " id))
  (POST "/data" {body :body} (process-data body)))

re-frame event handling example:

(re-frame/reg-event-db
 :initialize-db
 (fn [_ _]
   {:name "re-frame"}))

While Compojure focuses on HTTP routing, re-frame provides a more comprehensive framework for building interactive front-end applications with state management and event handling.

Pros of Hoplon

• Simpler syntax and more intuitive DOM manipulation
• Built-in support for client-server communication
• Allows for a more traditional HTML-like structure in ClojureScript

Cons of Hoplon

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to re-frame
• Less suitable for large-scale applications with complex state management
• Steeper learning curve for developers coming from React-like frameworks

Code Comparison

Hoplon:

(defelem hello-world []
  (div
    (h1 "Hello, World!")
    (p "Welcome to Hoplon")))

re-frame:

(defn hello-world []
  [:div
   [:h1 "Hello, World!"]
   [:p "Welcome to re-frame"]])

Key Differences

• Hoplon uses a more HTML-like structure with function calls
• re-frame uses Hiccup-style syntax for defining components
• Hoplon integrates view and logic more tightly, while re-frame separates concerns
• re-frame provides a more robust state management solution
• Hoplon is better suited for smaller projects, while re-frame scales well for larger applications

Both frameworks offer unique approaches to building ClojureScript applications, with Hoplon focusing on simplicity and re-frame on scalability and state management.

Pros of Om

• Simpler and more lightweight architecture
• Closer to React's component model
• Better performance for large-scale applications due to its immutable data structures

Cons of Om

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to ClojureScript
• Less opinionated, requiring more boilerplate code for complex applications
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to re-frame

Code Comparison

Om component:

(defui HelloWorld
  Object
  (render [this]
    (dom/div nil "Hello, World!")))

(def hello-world (om/factory HelloWorld))

re-frame view:

(defn hello-world []
  [:div "Hello, World!"])

(reg-sub ::greeting (fn [db _] (:greeting db)))
(reg-event-db ::set-greeting (fn [db [_ value]] (assoc db :greeting value)))

Both Om and re-frame are popular ClojureScript frameworks for building user interfaces. Om focuses on leveraging React's component model and immutable data structures, while re-frame provides a more opinionated architecture with a focus on reactive programming and event-driven design. The choice between the two often depends on the specific needs of the project and the team's familiarity with ClojureScript and React concepts.