2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
risingstars.js.org
2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#2We've had some questions on how libraries were selected. Basically, they were manually added and tagged on http://bestof.js.org, and we then reused the data to build the Rising Stars rankings.
So if you see a library missing, it could be because we didn't know about it and didn't add it to the database, or maybe tagged it in a way that excluded it from a specific category. Feedback welcome!
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#3The article mentions that Ava differs from Jest because of its focus on speed. Just figured I'd mention we are in the process of migrating from Ava to Jest, and we gained a 5x speedup in running our entire suite.
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#4Michael speaking, from Best of JavaScript project. One year ago, when "JavaScript Rising Stars 2016" was published, the topic was hot on HackerNews, there were a lot of questions about the data.
What was compiled here is only the variation of the numbers of stars on GitHub, over the span of one year.
Of course it's just one metrics we picked, but we hope it will give you a good understanding of what was the JavaScript landscape in 2017.
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#5The article mentions that Ava differs from Jest because of its focus on speed. Just figured I'd mention we are in the process of migrating from Ava to Jest, and we gained a 5x speedup in running our entire suite.
Jest improved so much since its first release, in the beginning it was mentioned only to test React components. Ava made the speed its first selling argument but Jest may be even faster, now... Thank you for your remark, we are going to update the comments accordingly, to say only "AVA emphasises on speed", removing "Compared to Jest".
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#6Somewhat predictably, the (static, non-interactive) page took about 30 seconds to load, thanks to all the Javascript.
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#7Somewhat predictably, the (static, non-interactive) page took about 30 seconds to load, thanks to all the Javascript.
You're the 2692389284th person writing this comment on HN and frankly it gets a bit tiring.
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#8Somewhat predictably, the (static, non-interactive) page took about 30 seconds to load, thanks to all the Javascript.
It loads much faster with JS blocked.
Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#9Re: 2017 JavaScript Rising Stars
#10I actually find this very informative, it gives a good overview of the js landscape right now. I'm however perplexed as to why the back button doesn't work, which makes navigation really hard particularly annoying on android mobile as pressing back ends up closing the browser. It uses react, so I thought that was pretty much supported out of the box. Any idea?