Hacker News Reader

Comment by swannodette | Hacker News Reader

Some inaccuracies here about Om. There are no message channels. There are no functional zippers. Component local state and lifecycle are critical React integration points. Hierarchy organized data is not required - people have succeeded at integrating DataScript. om-sync isn't even an official thing, just got tired of people asking me about a basic example :)

If you don't like Om, that's really OK. The real goal of Om was always to inspire people to consider and research alternatives to traditional client-side MVC. 16 months in I would say with the large number of excellent alternatives, Om very much succeeded.

I hope Om Next accomplishes the same broad goal and convinces people to seriously consider the big ideas behind Relay/GraphQL, JSONGraph/Falcor, and Datomic.

View on HN

No zippers? Why then does the official OM docs say "Cursors are conceptually related to functional lenses and zippers". Remember this thread relates to how simple or easy OM is to grok.

And no message channels? Why then does the intermediate tutorial plunge straight into the use of core.async?

I have no problem with OM being considered a grand experiment. I wouldn't use it but it has been an interesting idea generator. Please remember context here - I was responding to someone who claims astonishment that OM could be considered difficult to understand.

But, in terms of grand experiments, let's remember that Reagent came out at exactly the same time as OM. And Hoplon lead the way on Reative (FRP) long before either. So, having lived through it, I'd feel very uncomfortable with any overreaching claims about OM succeeding in inspiring all the others into the alternative MVC holy land. The others were there already.

I also feel that Om is very complex. I'm sure I've spent over 20 hours trying to wrap my head around it but didn't manage to do anything.

From the people that know it well, they all love it. But I don't seem to have the required knowledge to understand it. I feel somehow dumb by that. The docs aren't good also.

After that, I've tried reagent for 30 minutes and ended up with a lot of progress and I'm currently writing my first cljs small app. Everything seems to work and it's like clojure.

You have an atom and just have to write views in a hiccup style, everything magically works.

Maybe I will try Om later and get it, but it's not simple. I've been able to wrap my head around a lot of concepts with easy in my life, but Om felt too much.

Pairing with someone who's built a few Om apps should get you up to speed in no more than 45 minutes. I've done it a few times now, and it just takes a few examples, building some components, and composing them together.

I don't know anyone with interest in Om/clojure though :(

I'm learning clojurescript in addition to (eventually) learning Om. I feel like Om provides you a lower level of abstraction than Reagent which is good for building some complicated web apps. However, as a CLJS beginner, Reagent and the re-frame framework have been easy to dive into.

"From the people that know it well, they all love it. But I don't seem to have the required knowledge to understand it. I feel somehow dumb by that."

When I get this feeling, it's often because I haven't yet experienced the problems the new thing is trying to solve. Is it possible Om is an attempt to solve problems you haven't encountered?

I have no personal experience with Clojurescript (love Clojure, though), so this is just a generic comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com