Fork me on GitHub
Daniel Jomphe13:07:09

RCF: Have you tried making it possible to exclude the CLJS dep in our CLJ-only projects?

Daniel Jomphe13:07:12

I've seen 3 categories of our isometric deps: • Those for which we exclude CLJS and they break (RCF). • Those for which we exclude CLJS and they still work (, :scope provided). • Those who don't bring in CLJS automatically (, profile-based).

Daniel Jomphe13:07:12

Let me know if you'd value enough such an improvement so as to either look into it yourselves, or possibly accept a pull request.

Dustin Getz13:07:50

Hi Daniel thank you for the report we will take a look

🙂 2
Daniel Jomphe19:07:01

OTOH I just realized that since we expect to build some parts upon Hyperfiddle, getting rid of the imposed CLJS dep in RCF now wouldn't bring value to us in the long term.

🙂 2
Dustin Getz20:07:26

We will fix the dependency of course

🙂 2
Dustin Getz13:07:05

How heavily are you using RCF?

Daniel Jomphe13:07:23

We're just starting out. We're running to crank up much more code than tests for now, and since RCF is new, we're introducing it in non-critical parts of the code, to see how our REPL habits will be improved by it. We expect our main tests will be more E2E than unit-level tests, but who knows how much RCF will improve our future? I have great hopes.

Daniel Jomphe13:07:51

For sure, I expect my own coding will use RCF amap. But I'm more into writing tools than writing business logic. I'm just done migrating our stacks from the previous Datomic Cloud to the new one. Very happy about its recent evolution getting rid of Solo stacks and moving us all to the prod-level one.

Dustin Getz13:07:58

Is this for the startup?

Daniel Jomphe13:07:19

Yes. One stack for dev purposes, another one for demo/prod purposes.

Dustin Getz13:07:12

i read it! 🙂

😆 2
Daniel Jomphe13:07:56

I just posted my last response 2m ago in that discussion, fishing for more info at the same time.