[adambard]

The "object" syntax reminds me a lot of Clojure/script's Hiccup (https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup) style, which has become a de-facto standard across many popular libraries. In hiccup, this example:

    {
        tag: "button",
        attributes: {
            "id": "baz",
            "class": "foo bar",
            "data": "1",
            "onclick": f,
        },
        children: [
            "Hello",
            {
                tag: "em",
                attributes: {},
                children: ["there"],
            }
        ]
    }

Would be represented as:

    [:button#baz.foo.bar {:data 1 :on-click f} "Hello" [:em "there"]]

[jwr]

Thanks for mentioning this. I was about to say that those of us who write ClojureScript do not have the original problem: my functions return vectors with data, which then get turned into HTML, DOM objects, or React classes, depending on the specific use case.

In other words, there is only one language and one syntax to deal with.

[austincheney]

That looks identical to WC3 XML Schema language using JSON syntax instead of XML syntax.

[quietbritishjim]

I think you've missed that the hiccup example is the code on the final line.