Is my ClojureScript translation of this JS function idiomatic?

Question 1

I am trying to assess whether my CLJS function declaration is idiomatic. Here is my attempt to convert a JS function into its corresponding CLJS function. (You can ignore the actual content of the function).

JavaScript function:

var dir = require('node-dir');
function jsFunc(path) {
 dir.files(path, function(err, files) {
 if (err) throw err;
 files = files.filter(function (file) {
 return file.endsWith('.dec');
 });
 console.log(files);
 });
}

My translation into ClojureScript:

(defn cljs-func [input-path]
 (let [dir (node/require "node-dir")]
 (.files dir input-path (fn [err files] 
 (println (.filter files (fn [file] (.endsWith file ".dec")))))))

Question 2

Might be a better fit for the code review site - since this code works as expected, right?

Question 3

@cfrick "You can ignore the actual content of the function" sounds like it's not really a fit for Code Review. Code Review is all about working code that does things, where it's relevant what happens. as such this is probably not a good fit for the site :/

Question 4

well, then here are my 2ct: i'd use clojurescripts own filter and for something simple as the .endsWith check just #(.endsWith % ".dec"). also the cljs version ignores the err case. and at least in the browser println behaves different than console.log.

Question 5

Seems fine to me. As @cfrick points out in the comments, you could make the code more terse in some ways (e.g. using an anonymous function, which is idiomatic where its a single-use and relatively simple). Once you start having multiple arguments, I think it starts to make more sense to have an inline function declaration for readability's sake.

I would also second @cfrick's advice on preferring clojurescript's version of filter and any other function calls of this sort. I think the less you directly depend on the host environment, the more portable your code becomes. Certainly a trend that many clojure projects are going in these days with the introduction of reader conditionals in clojure 1.7.

Question 6

Ok. Do you have any thoughts on my code indentation? It feels awkward to have the cljs function I wrote go so far off the page to the right. In that respect, is there anything I'm doing which fails to be idiomatic?

Question 7

in terms of style guidelines (e.g. indentation) I would take a look at github.com/bbatsov/clojure-style-guide. I think its the de-facto standard AFAIK.

leeor 18k6 gold badges37 silver badges61 bronze badges · Accepted Answer · 2016-01-06 17:06:00Z

Seems fine to me. As @cfrick points out in the comments, you could make the code more terse in some ways (e.g. using an anonymous function, which is idiomatic where its a single-use and relatively simple). Once you start having multiple arguments, I think it starts to make more sense to have an inline function declaration for readability's sake.

I would also second @cfrick's advice on preferring clojurescript's version of filter and any other function calls of this sort. I think the less you directly depend on the host environment, the more portable your code becomes. Certainly a trend that many clojure projects are going in these days with the introduction of reader conditionals in clojure 1.7.

Ok. Do you have any thoughts on my code indentation? It feels awkward to have the cljs function I wrote go so far off the page to the right. In that respect, is there anything I'm doing which fails to be idiomatic?
in terms of style guidelines (e.g. indentation) I would take a look at github.com/bbatsov/clojure-style-guide. I think its the de-facto standard AFAIK.

CollectivesTM on Stack Overflow

Is my ClojureScript translation of this JS function idiomatic?

1 Answer 1

2 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Hot Network Questions

CollectivesTM on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

2 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Related