Add “Why Calva?” page to the docs

[nickcernis]

What has Changed?

• Adds a “Why Calva?” page to Calva docs to explain why people should pick VS Code + Calva.
• The page is distilled from my comment in Clojureverse about the reasons I use VS Code + Calva over other choices.
• The idea to adapt that comment into a docs page was invited by @PEZ via Clojureverse PM. Thank you for the suggestion!

I have checked formatting locally via npm run watch-docs, but this would of course benefit from further review.

My Calva PR Checklist

I have:

• Read How to Contribute.
• Directed this pull request at the dev branch. (Or have specific reasons to target some other branch.)
• Made sure I have changed the PR base branch, so that it is not published. (Sorry for the nagging.)
• [ ] Updated the [Unreleased] entry in CHANGELOG.md, linking the issue(s) that the PR is addressing.
• [ ] Figured if anything about the fix warrants tests on Mac/Linux/Windows/Remote/Whatever, and either tested it there if so, or mentioned it in the PR.
• [ ] Added to or updated docs in this branch, if appropriate
• [ ] Tested the VSIX built from the PR (so, after you've submitted the PR). You'll find the artifacts by clicking Show all checks in the CI section of the PR page, and then Details on the ci/circleci: build test. NB: You need to sign in/up at Circle CI to find the Artifacts tab.
  • [ ] Tested the particular change
  • [ ] Figured if the change might have some side effects and tested those as well.
  • [ ] Smoke tested the extension as such.
• [ ] Referenced the issue I am fixing/addressing in a commit message for the pull request.
  • [ ] If I am fixing the issue, I have used GitHub's fixes/closes syntax
  • [ ] If I am fixing just part of the issue, I have just referenced it w/o any of the "fixes” keywords.
• [ ] Created the issue I am fixing/addressing, if it was not present.

The Calva Team PR Checklist:

Before merging we (at least one of us) have:

• Made sure the PR is directed at the dev branch (unless reasons).
• Figured if anything about the fix warrants tests on Mac/Linux/Windows/Remote/Whatever, and tested it there if so.
• Read the source changes.
• Given feedback and guidance on source changes, if needed. (Please consider noting extra nice stuff as well.)
• Tested the VSIX built from the PR (well, if this is a PR that changes the source code.)
  • Tested the particular change
  • Figured if the change might have some side effects and tested those as well.
  • Smoke tested the extension as such.
• If need be, had a chat within the team about particular changes.

Ping @PEZ, @bpringe

[PEZ]

Thanks! This is lovely. Some notes:

As we don't usually tout our own horn this loudly, I think it would be better if this text was signed/bylined by you as a user. It would be a bit like a review. Albeit selected to be quite highlighted. 😄 I don't know how the review highlights would fit in that context... Maybe the outline of the article could be something like:

• According to Nick Cernis
  • Your text here
• Some review samples
  • X
  • Y
  • Z

[nickcernis]

Thank you for the kind feedback, @PEZ.

I fully respect your wish to keep the marketing pitches quieter and let Calva's users speak for it instead.

I updated the PR as you suggested. Now it just quotes my review from ClojureVerse and shows selected VS Code marketplace reviews.

[PEZ]

Sorry for the delay! Iike where this is going. But this Nick Cernis dude get to have two entries 😄 Two great entries, but it might look like we have a lack of fans. I suggest switching out the review from you for Clay Hopperdietzel's review, which also points at the fact that Calva is maintained and stewarded in a nice way.

[nickcernis]

@PEZ Good idea. This is ready for another look. No rush, though!

[PEZ]

Thanks!