41–50 of 167 posts
new function(window){}(this) is kinda weird to me. Sorry that's nothing valuable to add to your code.
Here are my thoughts, but you won't like them. Stop with the frameworks. Learn Javascript. Learn CSS. Learn HTML. You'll find pretty quickly that what you need are libraries , not frameworks. Things like jQuery, underscore, etc...
Hi lhorie, I like this. I want to use this. How long will this supported is my concern. Or is this a fun side hobby you worked on and plan on moving on to the next with no future updates? Cheers.
I don't mean this in a bad way, but do we really need another Javascript framework? Wouldn't author's energy be more useful when contributing to one of the existing ones?
Here are my thoughts, but you won't like them. Stop with the frameworks. Learn Javascript. Learn CSS. Learn HTML. You'll find pretty quickly that what you need are libraries , not frameworks. Things like jQuery, underscore, etc...
Here are my thoughts, but you won't like them. Stop with the frameworks. Learn Javascript. Learn CSS. Learn HTML. You'll find pretty quickly that what you need are libraries , not frameworks. Things like jQuery, underscore, etc...
So the big example at the end of Mithril would, for us, be something like (we implement binding as a jQuery extension)
$('.display').bind(data);
Where .display selects the root node of the bound UI, and data is our object.
Which is simpler and less code, I think. (Oh and our binding library has jQuery as a dependency, but is sub 3kB minified and gzipped.)
That said, we haven't put our libraries on github yet :-(
Here are my thoughts, but you won't like them. Stop with the frameworks. Learn Javascript. Learn CSS. Learn HTML. You'll find pretty quickly that what you need are libraries , not frameworks. Things like jQuery, underscore, etc...
That's similar to my viewpoint. Stop with all the frameworks - what new, powerful functionality will it provide your users that existing things can't do (ie JQuery, raw JS)?
You eventually end up writing your own framework of sorts anyway when you take minimal path.
it felt like you were giving a smart person a crash course in javascript
wish more apps sturctured their tutorials like this
great job!
One thing: it feels like it's aimed at people who are already competent at javascript
but your tutorial isn't too many steps away from a being solid "javascript for absolute beginners" guide
So would be cool if you made it slightly more beginner friendly, like I'm sure you're losing a lot of engagment and users because they read the first line of your guide and immediately think it's too complicated
"Mithril is a client-side Javascript MVC framework, i.e. it's a tool to make application code divided into a data layer (called "Model"), a UI layer (called View), and a glue layer (called Controller)"
Like I'd suggest adding a VERY simple sentence about why you'd want to use javascript AT ALL
both on the guide and the start page
like if someone landed on your page and they were good at HTML and css but never really programmed, they could probably use your framework to build their first programming project if you made it a little more beginner-friendly
great work! :)
I don't mean this in a bad way, but do we really need another Javascript framework? Wouldn't author's energy be more useful when contributing to one of the existing ones?
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted, it was a serious concern I expressed, with 0 intent of insulting anyone
The fact that frameworks are appearing at a ridiculous rate is also the reason people still feel compelled to make their own: the existing ones sometimes feel thrown together and flawed in obvious ways, so people automatically think about ways they could be better and try those things out. The result is progress (edit: sometimes the result is a bag of crap, but that's beside the point).
No, we don't need more frameworks. And yet that still isn't a good reason to stop building them, if for no other reason than to explore for yourself what goes into building one (if that's your interest).