Reagent API most used

In the process of developing Eucalypt I was interested in which parts of the Reagent API are most used. I put together these scripts to search GitHub for mentions of reagent and its API. Obviously these numbers have a lot of caveats (some API calls are inherently more frequent) but they give interesting ballpark numbers from non-private codebases. Hopefully this is useful to others.

See Python scripts for GitHub search/scraping of code. PRs for improving on this to get more accurate numbers are most welcome!

I would love to find a way to get "repo" counts not raw search counts, as "repos with r/atom calls" is more interesting/useful than just raw "r/atom calls".

Update: See below for an analysis with better data from Adrian Smith.

Summary

Functions

--- Reagent API Usage Report ---
require reagent.core      7656
atom                      6269
render                    3581
require reagent.dom       1664
with-let                  1114
:dangerouslySetInnerHTML  1036
cursor                    670
track                     170
wrap                      94
track!                    65
reaction                  60
unsafe-html               16
--------------------------------

Require styles

core

580   [reagent.core :as r]
264   [reagent.core :as reagent]
68    [reagent.core :as reagent :refer [atom]
26    [reagent.core :as r :refer [atom]
23    [reagent.core :refer [atom]
12    [reagent.core]
6     [reagent.core :refer [atom cursor]
4     [reagent.core :as ra]
3     [reagent.core :as reagent :refer []
2     [reagent.core :refer [adapt-react-class]
2     [reagent.core :as reagent :refer [reaction]
2     [reagent.core :as rc]

dom

513   [reagent.dom :as rdom]
119   [reagent.dom :as rd]
111   [reagent.dom :as dom]
40    [reagent.dom]
38    [reagent.dom :as d]
28    [reagent.dom :as reagent-dom]
26    [reagent.dom.client :as rdc]
18    [reagent.dom.client :as rdom]
16    [reagent.dom.client :as rdomc]
9     [reagent.dom :as r]
8     [reagent.dom.server :refer [render-to-static-markup]
7     [reagent.dom :refer [render]
7     [reagent.dom :as r-dom]
6     [reagent.dom :as r.dom]
5     [reagent.dom.server]
5     [reagent.dom.client :as rdom-client]
4     [reagent.dom :as reagent]
4     [reagent.dom.server :as rdom]
3     [reagent.dom.server :as dom]
3     [reagent.dom.server :refer [render-to-string]

Dewey SQL analysis

Adrian Smith ran the numbers using Dewey SQL:

I was curious how these results compared to running some queries using dewey sql (gist). Here are my results:
;; requires
"reagent.core"  4,677
"reagent.dom"     384

;; var usages
"atom"          7,212
"cursor"        2,442
"reaction"         31
"track"           128
"track!"           38
"unsafe-html"       8
"with-let"        672
"wrap"            158
"render"          681

"dangerouslySetInnerHTML" 446
I believe the dewey data will have fewer false positives, but potentially more false negatives.Based on what I found, I think it's likely that your render counts are inflated and probably have false positives. Same with with-let. One important caveat with :dangerouslySetInnerHTML is that since it's used by react, it's also used by many libraries other than reagent that wrap react. Additionally, other libraries also adopt it, even if they don't use react. Fwiw, you can find example usages for vars here. The web UI will only return the first 200 results, but you can download a json file with the first 10k results.