Ember: Baby Steps
wekeroad.com
Ember: Baby Steps
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#2Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#3I left out routing as these are baby steps. This example aims to be simple and clear.
Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#4Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#5Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#6I considered evangelizing it at my then-employer when it was still called SproutCore, but remember thinking "if it's going to take me at least a day or two before I begin to understand, how long is it going to take the rest of my team?"
There are a lot of interesting ideas in Ember. I'd love to see it take off. Hopefully we'll start to see documentation that makes it approachable for a wider audience of web developers.
Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#7Well, this all sounds remarkably familiar: https://github.com/regularfry/website/blob/master/source/gui... https://github.com/emberjs/website/pull/316
I like what you've done after having followed the link here, but it kind of wanders into discussions about IE and UTF8, and then actions and interactivity.
I was trying to show the core of what Ember is and does. Hopefully you can see that our goals were slightly different?
Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#8I met Tom at I/O last year and have been following Ember ever since. It's striking to me how consistently the message among newcomers is "this is hard/confusing". I considered evangelizing it at my then-employer when it was still called SproutCore, but remember thinking "if it's going to take me at least a day or two before I begin to understand, how long is it going to take the rest of my team?" There are a lot of i…
Honestly, as it stands, I don't know if I'd ever try and explain Ember to anyone aside from the basics which I've done.
The concepts are interesting - as you say - but in practice it just feels like a mediation on "what can we leverage with clever naming" that results in code that is ... less than clear in intent and purpose.
The API is the thing (to me) that brings it down. Nothing is discoverable and it's not easy to jump from one context to the next. In Angular, for instance, it's a pretty simple jump to understand that if you want an ability/function, you'll need to inject it.
This leads you to understand that "I need to do a JSON call... hmmm" and then boom: $http.
Ember isn't this way. It isn't until you grapple with models that you understand you'll be writing jQuery code to get remote data. In my mind this is a huge gap, given Backbone's ability to do it straight away, and Angular's injectable $resource stuff.
I like the ideas, but the API needs to be rebuilt.
Re: Ember: Baby Steps
#9I met Tom at I/O last year and have been following Ember ever since. It's striking to me how consistently the message among newcomers is "this is hard/confusing". I considered evangelizing it at my then-employer when it was still called SproutCore, but remember thinking "if it's going to take me at least a day or two before I begin to understand, how long is it going to take the rest of my team?" There are a lot of i…
One of the things that I really wish we could discuss as "a collegial group of developers" is whether this is the "Best Effort" or not. Honestly, as it stands, I don't know if I'd ever try and explain Ember to anyone aside from the basics which I've done. The concepts are interesting - as you say - but in practice it just feels like a mediation on "what can we leverage with clever naming" that results in code that is…