# Perils of accidental complexity in re-frame

**URL:** https://clojureverse.org/t/perils-of-accidental-complexity-in-re-frame/6254
**Category:** Watercooler
**Tags:** clojurescript
**Created:** [July 21, 2020, 2:00pm UTC](https://clojureverse.org/t/perils-of-accidental-complexity-in-re-frame/6254 "2020-07-21T14:00:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![dustingetz](https://clojureverse.org/user_avatar/clojureverse.org/dustingetz/32/4883_2.png) [@dustingetz](https://clojureverse.org/u/dustingetz)
#### Post date: [July 21, 2020, 3:59pm UTC](https://clojureverse.org/t/perils-of-accidental-complexity-in-re-frame/6254/6 "2020-07-21T15:59:59Z")

</div>

“Design patterns are missing language features”

Reframe is a half-baked action interpreter. The problem is Clojure doesn’t have a good way to define interpreters/evaluators. This is all terribly ironic given Clojure is a Lisp, and that the last 15 years of Haskell research have pretty much nailed composable interpreters.

“Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp”

---

_[View the full topic](https://clojureverse.org/t/perils-of-accidental-complexity-in-re-frame/6254)._