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

Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

moot.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#11

Post by tipiirai »

tharshan09 wrote: post #10

nice post. Could you go into more detail about the controller snippet? What are you doing after the "// listen to events on model".

When something happens on the topic object (it is expanded, collapsed or someone replies to it) an event is emitted. Here those events are caught and I can do my thing on that moment.

It's similar to jQuery custom events, except that we use our own event system so we can get rid of the DOM specific features – such as the jQuery.Event object.

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#12

Post by rich_harris »

Well articulated. If you'll forgive some shameless self-promotion, Ractive (http://ractivejs.org) was born of the same philosophy - programmers shouldn't have to bend their code to the will of a framework, nor should they have to learn a dozen new concepts in order to be productive. It's an alternative to Knockout or React.

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#13

Post by tipiirai »

rich_harris wrote: post #12

Well articulated. If you'll forgive some shameless self-promotion, Ractive ( http://ractivejs.org ) was born of the same philosophy - programmers shouldn't have to bend their code to the will of a framework, nor should they have to learn a dozen new concepts in order to be productive. It's an alternative to Knockout or React.

Looks good. I can definitely forgive :) Looks like we have similar goals:

> Ractive.js is designed to have as few surprises as possible – no mysterious $scope.$apply()

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#14

Post by lauripiispanen »

tipiirai wrote: post #9
lauripiispanen wrote: post #2

"I want two-way binding only, but I'm forced to take the whole framework. There is too much overhead for me. I hope they will make the data-binding a separate piece and make it simpler." How about Knockout.js? http://knockoutjs.com/

This example from the docs seems quite heavy: Feels a bit strange to define functions on the HTML code.

If you look at the examples above it, they contain references to functions in scope. This particular example demonstrates that you can also do custom binding if you wish. Most often you don't.

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#15

Post by hejsna »

Nice article and I agree with most of it - it's very hard to find a framework that strikes a good balance between lean and full-featured. But I don't think the answer is writing everything yourself, either. Rolling your own framework is a lot of work and you're not even guaranteed to wind up with something better than what's out there. Some people believe jQuery is bloated and create their own framework with a mix-and-match from microjs.com. Great! But it's super painful to work with, because at some point you realize "oh, i need to deep-copy this object" or "this should slide down - oh wait" and suddenly you're re-inventing wheels all over the place. With your own subtle browser bugs, Unicode issues, and keyboard problems. Ugh. Especially when you're going to replace things like socket.io, mentioned in the article.

But I'm on board with the general concept here and I'm not sold on Ember or Angular - they don't seem to speed up development or prevent bugs as much as they should, per kb downloaded to the client. Sometimes all you need is plain-old jQuery code, with a well thought out and structured API.

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#16

Post by tipiirai »

hejsna wrote: post #15

Nice article and I agree with most of it - it's very hard to find a framework that strikes a good balance between lean and full-featured. But I don't think the answer is writing everything yourself, either. Rolling your own framework is a lot of work and you're not even guaranteed to wind up with something better than what's out there. Some people believe jQuery is bloated and create their own framework with a mix-an…

Thanks. One thing to note that I didn't write my own framework. I just found my own way of structuring things. Apart from a custom event library there is virtually no framework code.

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#17

Post by tipiirai »

tipiirai wrote: post #16
hejsna wrote: post #15

Nice article and I agree with most of it - it's very hard to find a framework that strikes a good balance between lean and full-featured. But I don't think the answer is writing everything yourself, either. Rolling your own framework is a lot of work and you're not even guaranteed to wind up with something better than what's out there. Some people believe jQuery is bloated and create their own framework with a mix-an…

Thanks. One thing to note that I didn't write my own framework. I just found my own way of structuring things. Apart from a custom event library there is virtually no framework code.

Okay. I admit that we needed to bang our heads with the custom communication library which we use in place of socket.io. But our solution is more than 10 times smaller!! There is a crazy amount of clutter in socket.io, believe me. And it didn't scale for us. And most importantly we didn't want to use the proprietary syntax that goes inside a websocket channel since something as clean as JSON-RPC exists.

Re: Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us.

#18

Post by lrvick »

tipiirai wrote: post #17
tipiirai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. One thing to note that I didn't write my own framework. I just found my own way of structuring things. Apart from a custom event library there is virtually no framework code.

Okay. I admit that we needed to bang our heads with the custom communication library which we use in place of socket.io. But our solution is more than 10 times smaller!! There is a crazy amount of clutter in socket.io, believe me. And it didn't scale for us. And most importantly we didn't want to use the proprietary syntax that goes inside a websocket channel since something as clean as JSON-RPC exists.

Did you look at SockJS? It is far more mature than Socket.IO imo. Follows the websocket spec, does not resort to flash for fallback, supports more fallback methods, and later when websockets are fully supported native you just replace "SockJS" with "Websocket" in your code and drop the library.
Post reply on HN