anchor.diff:  * a very comprehensive, battle-tested library
   * very efficient minification
   * dead-code elimination, i.e code which is not used is removed. (This is
  -what enables the library to be comprehensive: you don’t have worry about
  +what enables the library to be comprehensive: you don't have worry about
   the extra bytes when adding functionality.)
   
   The majority of JavaScript developers have rejected Google Closure
  
positive.code: == Ecosystem
  
  [[whats-clojurescripts-equivalent-of-underscore.js-lodash]]
  **<<faq-js#whats-clojurescripts-equivalent-of-underscore.js-lodash,What’s ClojureScript's equivalent of Underscore.js / Lodash ?>>**
  
  It’s ClojureScript itself! ClojureScript comes with an excellent
  collections library. All the collections functions you know and love are
  there (map, reduce, filter, remove, …), and they work on abstractions,
  which means they are not restricted to javascripts objects and
  
negative.code: (not class hierarchies).
  
  Conceptually, you need to learn fewer things in ClojureScript that in
  JavaScript to get productive, because you don't have to learn to avoid
  all the traps of JavaScript. The REPL and the fact that documentation is
  included in the language play a critical role in speeding up the
  learning process.
  
  In all likelihood, the big challenge will not be to assimilate new
  concepts, but to forget old ones. As Yoda put it: 'You must unlearn what
  you have learned [about imperative and object-oriented paradigms]'; this
  makes it harder for experienced programmers. Having said that, if you've
  been developing with JavaScript in a near-to-functional style (as
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya4UHuXNygM[advocated] e.g by Douglas
  Crockford), this won't really be a problem.
  
  [[is-it-only-suitable-for-academics]]
  **<<faq-js#is-it-only-suitable-for-academics,Is it only suitable for academics?>>**
  