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.
I think Google will probably stop working on Closure when they stop using JavaScript … it’s not going to happen 
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.
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?
Google Closure already has a lot of features we don’t use - I’m not sure why this matters.
David
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?
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
This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.