2,035 karma · joined November 23, 2008
Secondly, Hiccup produces strings. Cloact typically creates DOM elements, through React, that change every time a component rendered. But it can also produce an HTML string using the same data, to pre-render a page on the server using node.js.
You could still use regular atoms, though, with some extend-type magic. But then you risk messing with non-Cloact code in horrible ways...
Yes, exactly, Cloact tries to stay really close to plain React. But since it allows you to separate data from rendering, undo should be quite trivial to implement (if you keep all your application data in a single cloact/atom)...
And if you don't like html in js, you could always embed ClojureScript in ClojureScript :-):
Rendering is incredibly quick, since React only touches the parts of the DOM that have changed. Components are very lightweight, so you can break down the UI in as many, self-contained parts as you like.
And you can do pretty much anything you like without ever having to use a single selector or DOM manipulation. That means that you only need classnames for CSS.
The only downside I've discovered so far is the extra tooling required to use the embedded HTML, and lacking compatibility with other tools, but I suppose that will become better with time.
"Since the only computer language Richard was really familiar with was Basic, he made up a parallel version of Basic in which he wrote the program and then simulated it by hand to estimate how fast it would run on the Connection Machine."
For example, in Stockholm Apple's map still shows most buildings as lying in the middle of some street. On the other hand, only relatively few businesses seem to be located in some kind of building. There seem to be quite obvious, and systematic, errors all over the place.
I hate tabloidy headlines with question marks. As in "Queen Elizabeth: Is She a Transvestite?", "The Moon: Is It Made of Cheese?" or "Linkbait: Will It Ever End?".
I don't remember her last name, but I'm pretty sure it is not ".".
Most of the time, I don't even have to make my own playlists: I just find someone else's that looks interesting, mark it for "Available offline", and listen to that for a while.
I'm not interested in "owning" music (whatever that means these days). I am interested in listening to it, and Spotify makes this very easy.
In comparison, the whole "locker" business seems very messy, and rather unnecessary. I can't for the life of me see what the advantage would be.
http://www.wireandtwine.com/store/products/subtraction-hel.h...
The main benefit is that Google's move may reduce the risk that the MPEG consortium goes crazy in the future, and starts to charge every possible user, causing havoc in the process.
The main cost is more certain: a huge inconvenience for content producers that were hoping to get away with going H.264 only, causing havoc in the process.
The interesting question is the usual one: is the benefit worth the cost?
I can't think of why anyone would want to promote flash, though.