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

Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#41

Post by mumphster »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #31
cimmanom wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will it still be possible to run in an ES2015-compatible browser without transpiling? That was one of the killer features of Vue for me.

Nope, and it won't run with ECMAScript-compatible editors, linters, static analyzers, or type checkers (see: Flow). I can't imagine recommending TypeScript to anyone I like.

Why would you use flow with typescript? Also valid javascript is valid typescript, you can even have typescript's tooling lint your javascript with a jsconfig file.

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#42

Post by skybrian »

Someone1234 wrote: post #40

Seems like they're repeating the mistakes of Angular 2.x+. Breaking backwards compatibility and adding a ton of tool requirements and libraries for basic usage. We're still stuck on Angular 1.x for exactly that reason. They also seem like they're going to drop IE10/11 support (ES2015 everything) thus either pushing the tool/library requirement even higher or simply not working on older browsers. Vue.js was attractive…

Do you know any of that for sure? Maybe you should be asking more questions?

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#43

Post by another-cuppa »

vezycash wrote: post #38
another-cuppa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to explain. I know how the web works. I used to write HTML in Notepad many years ago. With Vue I just didn't know how the stuff I was writing was turning into the stuff that the web browser actually sees. React is just a JS library that you can add on to your HTML and CSS and makes sense in the standard model. I guess with Vue I just don't feel in control any more, and that's a big no for me.

It's usually React that people complain about. If you like jQuery, you should like vue. Cause, you can use vue just by adding a script tag in your web page. You don't need command line, web pack or any other tool to use most of vue.

You can do that with React too.

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#44

Post by Someone1234 »

skybrian wrote: post #42
Someone1234 wrote: post #40

Seems like they're repeating the mistakes of Angular 2.x+. Breaking backwards compatibility and adding a ton of tool requirements and libraries for basic usage. We're still stuck on Angular 1.x for exactly that reason. They also seem like they're going to drop IE10/11 support (ES2015 everything) thus either pushing the tool/library requirement even higher or simply not working on older browsers. Vue.js was attractive…

Do you know any of that for sure? Maybe you should be asking more questions?

If you have something you want to contribute I'd prefer if you just did so. I don't feel like you're asking either question in good faith.

I got my information from the article this thread is about. As to if the article itself is "sure" I don't know, if you do then go ahead and contribute something constructive to the discussion.

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#46

Post by enraged_camel »

Someone1234 wrote: post #40

Seems like they're repeating the mistakes of Angular 2.x+. Breaking backwards compatibility and adding a ton of tool requirements and libraries for basic usage. We're still stuck on Angular 1.x for exactly that reason. They also seem like they're going to drop IE10/11 support (ES2015 everything) thus either pushing the tool/library requirement even higher or simply not working on older browsers. Vue.js was attractive…

>> Seems like they're repeating the mistakes of Angular 2.x+. Breaking backwards compatibility and adding a ton of tool requirements and libraries for basic usage.

>> They also seem like they're going to drop IE10/11 support (ES2015 everything)

It's funny because the article says the exact opposite of these things.

Maybe you haven't read it, or actually attempted to comprehend it?

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#47

Post by enraged_camel »

Someone1234 wrote: post #44
skybrian wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know any of that for sure? Maybe you should be asking more questions?

If you have something you want to contribute I'd prefer if you just did so. I don't feel like you're asking either question in good faith. I got my information from the article this thread is about. As to if the article itself is "sure" I don't know, if you do then go ahead and contribute something constructive to the discussion.

>> If you have something you want to contribute I'd prefer if you just did so. I don't feel like you're asking either question in good faith.

Your original comment was not in good faith. It claimed the exact opposite of the things said in the article (such as dropping IE 11 support - NOT correct).

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#48

Post by Someone1234 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #46
Someone1234 wrote: post #40

Seems like they're repeating the mistakes of Angular 2.x+. Breaking backwards compatibility and adding a ton of tool requirements and libraries for basic usage. We're still stuck on Angular 1.x for exactly that reason. They also seem like they're going to drop IE10/11 support (ES2015 everything) thus either pushing the tool/library requirement even higher or simply not working on older browsers. Vue.js was attractive…

>> Seems like they're repeating the mistakes of Angular 2.x+. Breaking backwards compatibility and adding a ton of tool requirements and libraries for basic usage. >> They also seem like they're going to drop IE10/11 support (ES2015 everything) It's funny because the article says the exact opposite of these things. Maybe you haven't read it, or actually attempted to comprehend it?

> It's funny because the article says the exact opposite of these things.

It what now?

> In addition, the API is designed with TypeScript type inference in mind. The 3.x codebase will itself be written in TypeScript, and providing improved TypeScript support. (That said, usage of TypeScript in an application is still entirely optional.)

And:

> Top level APIs will likely receive an overhaul to avoid globally mutating the Vue runtime when installing plugins. Instead, plugins will be applied and scoped to a component tree.

And:

> We are breaking some internal functionalities into individual packages in order to isolate the scope of complexity. For example, the observer module will become its own package, with its own public API and tests. [...] Decoupling the observer and scheduler into separate packages

And:

> The new codebase currently targets evergreen browsers only and assumes baseline native ES2015 support. Most of the ES2015 features used can be transpiled / polyfilled for IE11

The above is exactly what I referred to and all taken verbatim from the article. It is Angular 2.x+ all over again.

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#49

Post by agumonkey »

ssijak wrote: post #45
agumonkey wrote: post #6

Impressive list. I wonder if they can maintain the lean size. If so how faster will it be ?

If you have read the article you would have found answers to your questions. -> Gziped <10kb, and about 100% faster then vue2 on average.

I skimmed but too fast obviously

Re: Plans for the Next Iteration of Vue.js

#50

Post by Someone1234 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #47
Someone1234 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have something you want to contribute I'd prefer if you just did so. I don't feel like you're asking either question in good faith. I got my information from the article this thread is about. As to if the article itself is "sure" I don't know, if you do then go ahead and contribute something constructive to the discussion.

>> If you have something you want to contribute I'd prefer if you just did so. I don't feel like you're asking either question in good faith. Your original comment was not in good faith. It claimed the exact opposite of the things said in the article (such as dropping IE 11 support - NOT correct).

> It claimed the exact opposite of the things said in the article

I'm not sure why you've created two comment trees saying the same thing, I responded to your other comment above.

> Your original comment was not in good faith.

My original comment was my opinion based on my experience and after having read the article. If you disagree, fine, but I don't think it is fair to question my motives. Simple disagreement doesn't mean the person you're disagreeing with is responding in bad faith; asking loaded "questions" which read as thinly veiled insulted however...

Post reply on HN