In that case, i think it would side effect every time some-ratom were deref'd

in re-frame the components side effect once. This can be achieved via a form 2 component.

(defn my-single-side-effect-comp []
  (let [_ (js/console.log "my sideeffect")]
    (fn []
      [:h2 "hi, " (str @atom-name)])))

Here's how I wish people used cljsfiddle. In fact if there's any feedback I'm gearing up to do some upgrades on it....

http://cljsfiddle.com/#gist=5ca82ac26cd3555722e578583fa5aba2

So, the one-side-effect component will only alert when it's first mounted.

and since some-ratom is not dereffed inside the component it returns, dereferencing some-ratom won't cause a re-render

@escherize: since you brought up cljsfiddle, may I ask: why is it Reagent only?

Shouldn't the name be reagentfiddle or something like that?

the project itself is really cool, I've used to to demo clojurescript to some friends, but I feel like the name should be something else

Well, given that reagent is the most downloaded react interface (view library?) I didn't think it was as much of a stretch as you do.

@kauko: imo it makes sense to start off focused, but to use a name that isn't unnecessarily limiting

@escherize: most popular, yes, but not the only one. And there are other ways to do cljs than just React

Imagine if jsfiddle was only for Angular apps

wouldn't that be a bit weird?

especially if it was only for Angular 1.x

and again, the project itself is really good, it's just that I feel that the clojure community would benefit from having a fiddle where it's possible to test cljs code in general

there's definitely a need for a reagent fiddle. It may even be more important than a more generic one!

@gadfly361: so wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? 😄

I do agree with that. Are you proposing a particular action?

Also, of course, in js it's trivial to pull in new libraries - not so with cljs.

note that jsbin supports ClojureScript

library support will be a problem, but for showing pure CLJS stuff it's a good option

@escherize: how do you feel about registering http://reagentfiddle.com? Or http://reagent-fiddle.com?

something like that

Or alternatively, making the current http://cljsfiddle.com have the ability to do other stuff besides reagent

You certainly have more knowledge of the technical limitations

@kauko: I was disagreeing ;) I dont think the name should change

My hope would be the community could rally behind it and grow it into it's name (if desired), as opposed to making a bunch of one-off sites

ahh well that's definitely better

thanks @mikethompson — I actually found what he’s talking about in that article by browsing in the reagent.core source, but it’s undocumented and makes it hard/dangerous to guess about such things