ClojureScript w/o Google Closure


#21

Well, it depends what you mean by faster. A smaller program will download faster, and start faster. But it won’t run faster just because its smaller. That will depend on the way it does what it does instead.

I think the important point others have mentioned is that CLJS provides you a lot of higher level constructs, like immutable data structures. Those add weight to your app. That’s why GCC is used. It actually unbloat things.


#23

I think Google will probably stop working on Closure when they stop using JavaScript … it’s not going to happen :slight_smile:

We’ve been quite happy with Closure for the past 7 years and I don’t see why that will change for the next 7 and beyond.


#24

Any chance Google introducing new features to Google Closure which ClojureScript can hardly make use of? For example, read type definitions from TypeScript and use the in compilation?


#25

Google Closure already has a lot of features we don’t use - I’m not sure why this matters.

David


#26

Just curious, assuming that the Closure compiler does start to incorporate more support for TypeScript, would there be value in having the ClojureScript compiler emit TypeScript instead of Closure-annotated JavaScript?


#27

I think it depends if the Closure compiler can emit better code - smaller and/or more optimized - with Typescript as an input. I also wonder if it would be possible to use Clojurescript’s type inference to emit annotated Typescript in order to have compile-time. Very hypothetical and in a far future, but I found the idea intriguing. A completely dynamic language with some static typing haha