ClojureScript vs Fay
When comparing ClojureScript vs Fay, the Slant community recommends ClojureScript for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions to "The JavaScript Problem"?” ClojureScript is ranked 4th while Fay is ranked 11th. The most important reason people chose ClojureScript is:
Figwheel builds your ClojureScript code and hot loads it into the browser as you are coding! Every time you save your ClojureScript source file, the changes are sent to the browser so that you can see the effects of modifying your code in real time.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Live interactive programming with figwheel
Figwheel builds your ClojureScript code and hot loads it into the browser as you are coding! Every time you save your ClojureScript source file, the changes are sent to the browser so that you can see the effects of modifying your code in real time.
Pro Simple syntax
Lispness makes ClojureScript trivial to comprehend after an initial learning overhead.
Pro Easy to use existing JavaScript libraries
Clojure and ClojureScript are designed to be able to interact with their host. So the language by design makes it is easy to use existing JS libraries.
Pro Targets Google Closure-ready JavaScript for immense optimizations
Google's Closure Library converts regular JavaScript into a highly optimized form - including dead code analysis/elimination. It can even remove pieces of unused code from 3rd party libraries (eg, if you import jQuery but only use one function, Google Closure includes only that piece).
Pro Share application logic between browser and Clojure server
Clojure is also able to run web servers, so one can reap similar benefits to NodeJS in terms of sharing code between client and server.
Pro Can be used with React out of the box
Pro Excellent build tools
Both Leiningen and Boot are great build tools that manage code dependencies and deployment.
Pro Excellent tools for web development
ClojureScript has superb wrappers around React.js (see Reagent) that make building single-page apps a breeze. With figwheel, it's a web dev experience unlike any other -- hotloaded code, repl interaction, and instantly reflected changes make good development fun and fast. You can add things like Garden to make CSS-writing part of the same holistic experience and suddenly all development is a pleasant, smooth process.
Pro The Spec core library
From the creator of Clojure:
Spec is a new core library (Clojure 1.9 and Clojurescript) to support data and function specifications in Clojure.
Writing a spec should enable automatic: Validation, Error reporting, Destructuring, Instrumentation, Test-data generation and Generative test generation.
Pro Small output
Fay produces smaller output than pure Haskell compilers such as GHCJS; It does not need to include the whole Haskell runtime, as it drops support for features such as multi-threading, giving it fewer dependencies.
Pro Simple, flexible, hackable FFI
As with UHC, the FFI to Javascript works with printf-style format:
max = ffi "Math.round(%1,%2)"
This can simplify code needed to make calls to methods on objects, in contrast to e.g., Purescript's FFI, which requires that methods be wrapped in Javascript. Similarly to UHC, Fay also supports the use of %*
, for javascript functions with arbitrary numbers of parameters, such as concat
, though they must expose an explicit number of parameters to Fay.
Pro Easy to set up, with packages available on Cabal
Fay is available on Cabal, as are Fay packages, so getting up and running is as simple as typing 'cabal install'. Happstack, Snap, and Yesod packages are available on Hackage, as are bindings for JQuery and Backbone.
Pro Subset of Haskell - nothing new to learn
Since Fay is a subset of Haskell - Lazy, statically typed, and pure by default. There's no new syntax to learn, and no surprises when it comes to the semantics of your code. This extends into function names as well - Fay programmers can use familiar functions such as putStrLn
to output to the console, rather than Javascript-specific versions.
Cons
Con Tooling is horrible
I've never seen worse tooling before. Writing tests and getting test coverage reports is near impossible. Tooling is brittle and clunky. Feels prehistoric.
Con Syntax may seem cryptic to people not used to Lisp
Lisp is sometimes called "syntax-less" and this is bewildering to those steeped in Algol-type syntax (Java, Javascript, C, etc). Being a dialect of Lisp, ClojureScript's syntax may seem cryptic and hard to understand for people not used to it. While Lisp has very little syntax compared to other languages and it's generally considered pretty terse, there's still an initial overhead in learning the language.
Con No typeclasses
This can cause some overhead.