Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Create React Apps with No Configuration

facebook.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 250 posts

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#221

Post by pbreit »

danabramov wrote: post #35
pbreit wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why they would need to lock down the configuration and then have to offer the eject thingy. Couldn't they just offer a "facebook-certified" starter pack/bootstrap? I guess you could just do an immediate eject? Edit: looks like they contemplated that in the survey: "Yes, and I will run `eject` straight away"

Many people (especially beginners) appreciate automatic updates of their dependencies. If you eject straight away you’ll have to manage them yourself, which is a big turnoff to many.

Could there be some sort of npm feature that incorporates a remote list of dependencies & versions?

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#222

Post by tlrobinson »

danabramov wrote: post #205
cheapsteak wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is super useful for helping beginners overcome initial barriers and quickly become productive, but do you see this as something that most will eventually grow out of?

When you grow out of it, you run "eject" and customize everything you want. We think in the beginning many will "eject" but we will gradually make the defaults better to cover more and more use cases.

That makes sense, but I think there will always be people who want to tweak ESLint rules or enable new Babel features, but would still like to take advantage of improvements to this project.

Perhaps exposing a subset of those tools' configuration options would be sufficient.

Alternatively, you could imagine a pretty simple system that allows you to pull newer versions of the "ejected" code and handle merge conflicts using your version control software.

I'd also suggest reducing the amount of non-configuration code that's generated by "eject". I think basically everything in "scripts" could be put into a package ("openChrome.applescript" seems like it should be a feature of opn anyway). That would also reduce the number of devDependencies that need to be added to your project's package.json (rimraf, chalk, opn, etc)

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#223

Post by vinceguidry »

vmasto wrote: post #179
coldtea wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he knows about those two options. (The guy you're responding to is the creator of Redux) :-)

And now working for Facebook, one of the most active members of the react team at that.

Facebook created React.

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#224

Post by chriskrycho »

Touche wrote: post #112
orf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the beauty of Ember: you run one tool. `ember`. Sure it uses Babel under the hood and a CSS preprocessor, but they are not separate tools really. But what exactly is wrong with a CLI? I'm sorry but I really don't get your point. I mean, you kind of have to run one or more anyway if you want to do modern JS development because the JS you write isn't the JS that gets served to the browser (and for good reaso…

> A CLI is a requirement and has been for a while now. It's really not, you can get by fine with a text editor and a web browser only. You can use regular web components (works unmodified in Chrome, there's a polyfill for other browsers) and get modularity and all of the things you need. You can add Polymer which, again, doesn't require anything but an editor and a browser.

Do you combine and minify your code? If so, how—presumably a command-line tool? It's totally fine to say that you'd prefer to keep your dependencies fairly minimal, but pinning that on whether you use a CLI or not seems a false dichotomy from here. The question is how much tooling and what it does for you, versus what it gives you. There is no doubt a real tradeoff there; there are costs to something like Ember CLI and there's no reason everyone should think those costs are worth embracing in every instance. But to be sure, there are upsides: being able to write ES2015, being able to pull in tests automatically, being able to run your entire test suite against the entire app without needing to write any glue to do that yourself... those things do have value, even if they're not particularly appealing to you. And all of those quite comfortably use the official specs to get that work done.

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#226

Post by abritinthebay »

vlunkr wrote: post #124
abritinthebay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is why I actively suggest not using webpack. It's Grunt 2.0 all over again and not worth the mess. IMO it's the worst choice Facebook could have made for this toolkit, as it breeds some awful habits.

I actually use browserify for personal projects. It's ultra simple to get started. My boss insists on using webpack.

If you don't care about the stupid arbitrary bundling system for other assets (like CSS and images) that WebPack has (and you shouldn't: it's an awful code practice) then yes... Browserify is literally better in every way (other than tree shaking)

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#227

Post by abritinthebay »

danabramov wrote: post #98
abritinthebay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is why I actively suggest not using webpack. It's Grunt 2.0 all over again and not worth the mess. IMO it's the worst choice Facebook could have made for this toolkit, as it breeds some awful habits.

What’s wrong with using webpack under the hood? The problem is webpack being a lower level tool. This is why we abstract it away from you (and we can swap it for something better if it comes along, but actually webpack is pretty powerful).

We discussed this on Twitter Dan, fyi, no need to rehash here.

But they very fact you had to spend time abstracting away WebPack speaks volumes IMO...

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#228

Post by abritinthebay »

cheapsteak wrote: post #126
abritinthebay wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all the same reasons people railed against Grunt. It's config heavy for very little benefit.

The only practical reason I can think of for people railing against grunt is that it used the file system for in-between steps and was thus frustratingly slow (a problem that webpack doesn't have). Code vs config is a huge bikeshed

> Code vs config is a huge bikeshed

Not really. Historically it's been an indication of the quality of a system.

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#229

Post by abritinthebay »

thegayngler wrote: post #172
abritinthebay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is why I actively suggest not using webpack. It's Grunt 2.0 all over again and not worth the mess. IMO it's the worst choice Facebook could have made for this toolkit, as it breeds some awful habits.

Really? I find Webpack to be an order of magnitude easier to explain and understand when compared to Grunt.

Yes, but that's not saying much is it?

Re: Create React Apps with No Configuration

#230

Post by Bernastok »

The idea that Ember is made by/for small and medium sized companies is a bit dated. Several Ember and Ember-CLI core contributors have and continue to work at larger companies like LinkedIn and Yahoo. In particular, LinkedIn has been using Ember (with Ember-CLI) for over a year now and has found a lot of benefits from its adoption. Having a build system and conventions that a community maintains lets us focus on building applications instead of tooling (though we still have our share of internal tools). We also can give back to the community for things which matter more for applications "at scale". LI, for instance, funded a good portion of the FastBoot work and has been a key driver in the Ember Engines effort recently. All that to say, Ember (and Ember-CLI) can serve the needs of the whole spectrum of company/team sizes. While it still has some issues to sort out for larger applications, to say it isn't being influenced by large companies isn't really accurate any more
Post reply on HN