Hacker News Reader

Comment by harperlee | Hacker News Reader

I’m another person, but: when I initially read an old version of it (about 4 years ago) I liked the comprehensiveness but disliked the tone. Perhaps due to not being a native english speaker, it distracted me and made it harder to get the point.

Quickly peering it it seems that it has been improved, although some things there remind me of what I felt, such as:

    McCoy might report "It's MVC, Jim, but not as we know it". And you would respond "McCoy, you trouble maker, why even mention an OO pattern? re-frame is a functional framework."

This does not help me a lot; although I know about “the real mccoy” expression, I dont understand/enjoy that.

View on HN

Well, I'm glad to hear it might have improved. After taking a battering in this thread, I'll take any possible small win.

What you reference is an attempt at a joke which requires certain cultural knowledge (Early Star Trek). On this point, I'm probably unlikely to change, and will just have to ask for your forgiveness. I like my docs to have an occasional joke, whether I'm the reader or the writer. But I am aware that this is not everyone's cup of tea (English cultural reference).

The re-frame docs and "marketing" speak, like on its front github page, would do very well to remove a lot of the self-congratulatory tone, frankly. A lot of it reads like someone very impressed with themselves rather than text about how to use an actual tool.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

the re-frame docs are great, never change

I appreaciate you saying that, thanks.

Please don’t listen to the peanut gallery. The re-frame docs are in a league of their own and most of us appreciate the enormous effort put in to make them awesome. Keep rocking.

Oh Man, it is certainly nice to hear something positive. Thanks!

The docs are great and re-frame is a pleasure to work with. It make take some time to read through the docs but it is a worthwhile endeavor as the concepts build upon each other. They reward those willing to take the time. When I was a newcomer to re-frame and cljs I did not find the re-frame docs to be pretentious or off putting in any way. If not for re-frame and the re-frame docs I'm not certain I would have continued to use Clojure or cljs. Thank you for building this excellent tool and providing high quality documentation to back it.

I really like the re-frame docs, thank you very much for putting so much effort into them. They've helped me grow as a programmer. For context, I first stumbled across the readme in ~2015-16 in college before working professionally. As someone looking to learn I enjoyed the didactic bent, I felt like I got the big picture. It tied together a lot of Clojure kool-aid.

The vibe I get from the tone of the docs isn't really juvenile or self-congratulatory. The humor is mature, references made show that material therein have been considered. It's not memes and emojis and WOW! It's somewhat unprofessional, has a few in-jokes, but I like those signals. If the docs haven't succumbed to design-by-committee lowest-common-denominator then neither has the code. It gives me the feeling that someone took the slow road, thought about a lot of things, came out with something simple, and is likely to work hard to preserve that simplicity.

The docs tell me that re-frame is focused on the craft. That means a lot more to me than sprinting to see how do I do x in y quickly.

Well I tried to write a balanced comment and try not to hurt but it seems I failed. As I said, the content was good; and I did not say it but I would kill for that level of docs in every open source project. So sorry if I hit your emotions and thanks for your work!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com