71–80 of 191 posts
But I don't really see why I'd want to do that.
This post is getting a lot of flack from people who haven't given it more than a glance. -------Benefits 1. SEO is not a problem. Since OJ can be compiled on the server-side, it's comparable to EjS, JADE or other templating languages, which means SEO is not a problem. 2. Current code-size can be ignored in the long run. This code doesn't have to be sent to the client (since it can run on the server), could possibly b…
In addition oj has an (optional) server side commandline tool that already supports a Browserify-like approach of building websites that can use Node packages. So if you are looking to make a static page for say GitHub pages, the OJ commandline tool already supports using npm as an OJ package manager.
One last thing: my top priority right now is Express Server integration to finish out the dream of shared Client and Server code in node. This will allow use of npm as packages even more, so if any experts on Express are out there, I'd love to talk to you.
Well, it's only 11 000 lines of js... Plus Backbone, plus jQuery, plus underscore, plus ace. Loading the source page takes about 15s on my computer... I'm not sure I would like my index.html to like this https://github.com/ojjs/ojjs.github.com/blob/master/index.ht...
When will we write a full browser in js and render to canvas?
This post is getting a lot of flack from people who haven't given it more than a glance. -------Benefits 1. SEO is not a problem. Since OJ can be compiled on the server-side, it's comparable to EjS, JADE or other templating languages, which means SEO is not a problem. 2. Current code-size can be ignored in the long run. This code doesn't have to be sent to the client (since it can run on the server), could possibly b…
Just to add to #5: OJ already is using Node's npm as a package manager. It was my thought that server-side templating aligns perfectly with node, so all plugins are already just a require away (packages are named: oj-youtube-video, oj-markdown, oj-twitter-button, etc). In addition oj has an (optional) server side commandline tool that already supports a Browserify-like approach of building websites that can use Node…
This feels like it is trying to reinvent the wheel. Is there something wrong with using HTML and CSS?
Please do not use something like this if you're building your next project. NOTHING is wrong with using mustache or so for templating, but this is just plain wrong. You will know how much it costs to use something like this if you have a project that you've worked on for weeks or months and need to hand it over to another developer. Or actually any other interaction with a third party like a designer or frontender th…
Do you have any other reason why we shouldn't use OJ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal for OJ is create reusable UI building blocks. So I agree completely that keeping sites simple and declarative is the way forward. I would argue though that if the abstraction well reasoned it doesn't matter if it is in HTML or in JS. It still simplifies things for the programmer and maintainer. Or another way to say it -- Imagine you can insert a YouTubeVideo as simply as you can insert a div. If that YouTub…
could be great if i could describe the reusable UI building blocks in a markup language, do their formatting separately with style sheet fragments and add a simple scripting language for actions and animations.
And then we can have laymen code the templates and styling because it will be so simple.
It will be glorious!