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

Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 382 posts

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#81

Post by wetpaws »

qudat wrote: post #56
ilovecaching wrote: post #2

I really like a lot of things about Vue. I was apprehensive about using JSX when I first started using React, and I also did not like setState. I think the real issue, though, was that I wasn't thinking functionally. I now rarely write a stateful component, and when I do, it's usually once, for the entire application, or maybe for a few large subtrees if the app is very large. State kept alive by parameters is extrem…

It saddens me that JSX became so popular in the React community. I find the syntax verbose and hard to read ... similar to HTML. At my last company we used `react-hyperscript` which was a simple wrapper around `react.createElement`. Ultimately, the React developers made the mistake of making `createElement` so annoying to work with, I assume because they bought into JSX. Granted, JSX might have been necessary when Re…

excuse me if i'm wrong, but isn't it just a snippet for react.createElement?

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#82

Post by k__ »

zmmmmm wrote: post #54
sharpercoder wrote: post #16

One particular weak point of Vue is it's dependency on build tools. I spend a few days buiding a great app, and then another few days on getting the build apps configured right with Vue. You google from one error message to another, where each message is unclear and no relation to any build tool/plugin/library/script is made. I really like Vue for the many great strong points it offers. But I'm equally ready to compl…

Such a strange comment to read ... quite literally, the reason I first started using Vue over other frameworks was I wanted to put it into legacy apps and did not want to use a build tool. It's one script tag. Not in a half lying way like people say about React, for real. It falls down if you start throwing in components and libraries that presume webpack based setups (which is annoying), but Vue itself is completely…

Such a strange comment to read ... literally, the reason Facebook first started creating React was they wanted to put it into legacy apps. :D

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#83

Post by baddox »

stupidcar wrote: post #17
ilovecaching wrote: post #2

I really like a lot of things about Vue. I was apprehensive about using JSX when I first started using React, and I also did not like setState. I think the real issue, though, was that I wasn't thinking functionally. I now rarely write a stateful component, and when I do, it's usually once, for the entire application, or maybe for a few large subtrees if the app is very large. State kept alive by parameters is extrem…

If plain, idiomatic React so great, why does every semi-complex React app end up bringing in a separate state management framework like Redux or MobX? The reason is that while you may be able to break up your HTML into a composable hierarchy of purely-functional components, the actual data and state you need to distribute to them has a structure that is completely unrelated to how its laid out in the DOM. In a comple…

Idiomatic React is both compatible with and orthogonal to state management libraries like Redux or MobX. React is (in my opinion, and likely in the opinion of its creators and maintainers), a library for creating reusable ("dumb" or "presentational") components. In many web apps built with React components, you will want another library to manage the global state of the entire application and provide your dumb components with read/write access to specific pieces of that global state.

I don't understand your point that injecting state into your components (e.g. with Redux' connect function) means JSX is just another fancy HTML templating library. All you need to do is have your React component export a "dumb" version as well as a connected version. Your dumb version will still be reusable in other parts of your application, and any other application could also use your dumb component and connect it to their global state through whatever means they please.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#84

Post by enraged_camel »

mmcnl wrote: post #66

The ugly in this article isn't really the ugly, it's the good. Nobody's holding you back from writing a simple ES6 module that handles API requests for you. Vue is a view layer, nothing more and nothing less.

This is what I do and it works wonderfully.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#85

Post by k__ »

_bxg1 wrote: post #79

I've used React full-time at work for a year and a half now, and I did a personal project in Vue for a while to try it out, before converting it to React. There are some things I really, really hate about React. It is not kind or accommodating (Vue is both of these things), but it gives you control. I was head-over-heels for the first few days of using Vue; "breath of fresh air" is exactly the phrase I'd use. But the…

Vue reminded me so much of Ember that I could not understand how people could think of fresh air...

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#86

Post by chrisco255 »

strken wrote: post #51
stupidcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If plain, idiomatic React so great, why does every semi-complex React app end up bringing in a separate state management framework like Redux or MobX? The reason is that while you may be able to break up your HTML into a composable hierarchy of purely-functional components, the actual data and state you need to distribute to them has a structure that is completely unrelated to how its laid out in the DOM. In a comple…

React isn't about JSX and passing foo/onUpdateFoo down 20 levels of props. It's about data flowing in one direction down a tree of diffable virtual components, then being passed back up. The single most important idiom is that all data for a component should come from state or props, and that when you need to break this rule you should do it inside a single component or a handful of components that will then handle y…

Redux is not over-engineered. It's a simple library that's <1000 lines of code. It is great for large, complex apps where state gets hairy to manage. It's a bit verbose for smaller apps. But just because something is verbose does not mean it's over-engineered. It is explicit in defining all the possible states your application can get in. That's useful for a certain class of application.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#87

Post by _bxg1 »

ilovecaching wrote: post #2

I really like a lot of things about Vue. I was apprehensive about using JSX when I first started using React, and I also did not like setState. I think the real issue, though, was that I wasn't thinking functionally. I now rarely write a stateful component, and when I do, it's usually once, for the entire application, or maybe for a few large subtrees if the app is very large. State kept alive by parameters is extrem…

I've been using React full-time for a year and a half now, and I've never felt like pure-functional components are a good fit for more than a handful of use-cases. If all you're doing is displaying data, then sure, they're really elegant, but most UI code isn't a pure function of state; it also sends messages back to state, which means the two are tightly coupled, which means pretending they aren't feels gross and weird (I'm looking at you, Redux).

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#88

Post by voltagex_ »

jazoom wrote: post #55
carusooneliner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our site does't work with js disabled. Serious question: is it common for folks to disable js? vue is used only for the web app. No js frameworks used in the chrome app.

It's not common. My site with hundreds of thousands of users has been using React/Vue for years and I've never had one complaint about JavaScript. If JavaScript is disabled I just show a message saying the site needs it. I also only support modern browsers and haven't had a complaint for 3 years. About 3 months ago I completely dropped support for any browser that doesn't support CSS grid (no more IE 11!). Again, no…

How does your site sound/read in a screenreader like NVDA? [0]

0: https://www.nvaccess.org/

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#89

Post by octref »

Have to do some clarification here on the point of "Unclear architectural patterns", as the article is way too misleading.

- The reason the API call is made at `created` lifecycle is that the video is a quick, 5 minute intro for beginners. Beginners, as in "people who are familiar building static websites using html/css/js". There is no need to bring in Vuex or vue-router yet. In fact the whole beginner example can be put into a single HTML file by including a Vue script tag. The approachability is what made Vue shine. Some other frameworks assume that you want a build tool, state management, client side routing etc and beginners spend hours configuring those tools and figuring out state management and client-side routing, instead of doing real work.

> To answer to my initial question: API logic should not be written in Vuex nor in components. There is even a good example on how do that in some of the official code examples.

- The example[0] clearly has the API logic in the Actions. The `/api` folder is a mocked API for illustration purpose.

[0]: https://github.com/vuejs/vuex/blob/dev/examples/shopping-car...

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#90

Post by voltagex_ »

patrickmay wrote: post #37
condescendence wrote: post #7

>You’ll be adding similar boilerplate for computed properties, component state, watchers, etc. Pretty much everything in Vue has its own special syntax with more boilerplate. I kinda like this syntax, when I first learned vuejs I knew immediately that some magic was going on in the background. If I saw marko's syntax I'd be wondering how this shit is getting done. It also makes it easier when searching for issues or…

Could you recommend two or three non-chat based communities? I'm just starting to try Vue and the first handful of tutorials I've tried simply don't work as described.

I'm always interested when people say that tutorials don't work - I had a site planned called wrongtutorial.com but I couldn't work out how to make it funny/informative without being demeaning.

What tutorial are you using? How old is it? What didn't work?

Post reply on HN