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

Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

muut.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 222 posts

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#171

Post by boobsbr »

api wrote: post #167
boobsbr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"real language"...

Not saying Java is the best language ever, just that it passes a certain minimum bar that JavaScript does not.

I'm a Java developer (and it might shock people, but I like it), where I work we're still stuck with good ol' Struts, it works, and a big international corporation uses this system.

But comparing a functional scripting language with a object-oriented statically-typed pre-compiled language, arguing one is better than the other, does not make sense to me.

You can easily revert the situation and say that static typing is a weakness of java, and it's poor fucntional (until before v8) capability is a drawback and a strong point for Javascript.

I'm not into the JS world so I can't say anything about the tooling, but yes, Java's tooling and ecosystem is an extremely strong point.

My complaint is about dismissing Javascript as not a "real language" while it's got A LOT going for it.

EDIT: I also worked with GWT (GXT from ExtJs, actually) in 2011-2012, and it was really nice. I miss it.

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#172

Post by mrcwinn »

lowboy wrote: post #133
mrcwinn wrote: post #131

"Riot is React + Polymer + models + routing without the bloat." It is not + React. It's - React. It lists as one of its features, for example, a lack of a component lifecycle API (componentDidMount, componentWillMount, etc). This lifecycle API is one of React's best and most usable features. I can't give too much credit to a "tiny library" if it achieves its size by removing even the most basic features of other proj…

https://muut.com/riotjs/guide/#tag-lifecycle

Great link. Then I'm even more confused that it makes the point to say it doesn't have "componentDidMount," [but it just has something else instead]. To me, the mixed markup shown on that page is a bizarre way to express a component's rendered state. Just my personal opinion.

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#173

Post by tomphoolery »

state wrote: post #143
saurabhnanda wrote: post #138

I just wish there was a way to fast forward 2 years into a 10k LOC project to find out what new problems this creates. After running after the new hotness in technology for the last 5 years, I've realised it's never about the problems it solves today. It's the shit that you have to maintain a couple of years down the line. (Not saying that this is bad -- just a random rant)

This is so true. On the one hand I wish that the docs for these projects could speak to those concerns, but on the other hand I'm not even sure how they would do that successfully. When something is this young it just takes time to figure out how it's going to survive and be maintained. I remember the days of using prototype.js over jquery. If only someone could have saved me the time.

> I remember the days of using prototype.js over jquery. If only someone could have saved me the time.

There was plenty of criticism from the JS world when Prototype came out, and the main issue everyone had was how Prototype attempted to shoehorn classical OOP into JavaScript (hence, the abuse of prototypes and fake class inheritance), which is a mistake amateur JS developers make to this day. jQuery has at least made it so using the most popular DOM abstraction framework didn't also mean you were running less-than-ideal code inherently, but developers still manage to mess this one up.

I think it's because when you learn how to program, you only learn the classical style, so you're not ready for the pitfalls of prototypal inheritance. So a lot of developers go through the "phase" of attempting to retro-fit their own ideas of how programming should work into a language that is designed in a totally different way, inevitably lead to problems, and have "the revelation" of understanding the prototypal inheritance idea. It's kind-of like a growing pain, which is why I'm really happy JS is being taught more heavily in schools and especially to entry-level programmers. Unlike Java, JavaScript is more accessible (just pop open the REPL in any browser) and its results are easier to observe. While it's not a great tool to teach people the concepts of OOP, I think it's very useful to teach kids at a young age that there isn't just one way to do things. They're different enough to screw developers up on a day-to-day basis, but not different enough that spending a few weeks with the language isn't enough to grasp its power.

As others have said, you really didn't waste your time there. If anything, it was simply a matter of JS developers collectively and simultaneously going through the same growing pains and eventual realizations about how the language works.

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#174

Post by lhorie »

jrmiii wrote: post #166
lhorie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, Mithril author here. A few important differences as far as I can tell: - Riot apparently requires a compile step (at least as far as being able to follow the docs goes), Mithril doesn't - Riot has no AJAX support, Mithril does (plus promises, plus an idiomatic workflow to work with async ajaxy stuff: `var prop = m.request(...)`) - I could not find anything about keys in the Riot docs. Keys are a very important pa…

Thanks for the comparison. If you look in the demo code, you'll see you don't necessarily need the compile step, just write your custom tags with riot.tag and use strings for the would-be compiled part.

Interesting, I missed that. But I assume that's not idiomatic, is it?

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#175

Post by randallsquared »

v13inc wrote: post #161
state wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true. On the one hand I wish that the docs for these projects could speak to those concerns, but on the other hand I'm not even sure how they would do that successfully. When something is this young it just takes time to figure out how it's going to survive and be maintained. I remember the days of using prototype.js over jquery. If only someone could have saved me the time.

I'm sorry for coming across as a dick, but the idea that you "wasted" time learning a framework that became obsolete is silly to me, and it seems to be a common sentiment. Ask yourself: at the time you used prototype.js, did it save time on the project? If you answered Yes, then it was never a waste of time. Knowing prototype.js AND jQuery makes you a better developer: you learned the hard way that abusing prototypes…

Well, there's opportunity cost to consider.

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#177

Post by roller »

evmar wrote: post #134
tipiirai wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure but this might indeed fail. Can you place an issue to github? Thanks! Maybe it's good to split HTML and JS with the last HTML tag.

Idea: require a tag around the JS in the template (but just for your parser's benefit, not as a tag you intend to embed literally in the rendered DOM -- you can remove it at parse time as necessary). This has the nice side benefit that it will make editors happy. (E.g. emacs recognizes tags within HTML and does JS highlighting/indenting on their content.)

This seems like a great idea, even if it's just optional tags that get ignored. With you suddenly have a valid html fragment that should work with any editor.

I guess as is, a make could include a grep -v step.

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#178

Post by drt »

state wrote: post #143
saurabhnanda wrote: post #138

I just wish there was a way to fast forward 2 years into a 10k LOC project to find out what new problems this creates. After running after the new hotness in technology for the last 5 years, I've realised it's never about the problems it solves today. It's the shit that you have to maintain a couple of years down the line. (Not saying that this is bad -- just a random rant)

This is so true. On the one hand I wish that the docs for these projects could speak to those concerns, but on the other hand I'm not even sure how they would do that successfully. When something is this young it just takes time to figure out how it's going to survive and be maintained. I remember the days of using prototype.js over jquery. If only someone could have saved me the time.

Agreed.

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#179

Post by caoglish »

Last year, its size is 1k which they are proud of. Now 2.5k which is 2.5 times of used to be. Just let me guess: this library will become double size to 5k next year this time.

Even jQuery is thinking how to reduce the file size by its team. This library increases its size like this much. Seriously?

Re: Riot – A React-like, 2.5K user interface library

#180

Post by desireco42 »

saurabhnanda wrote: post #138

I just wish there was a way to fast forward 2 years into a 10k LOC project to find out what new problems this creates. After running after the new hotness in technology for the last 5 years, I've realised it's never about the problems it solves today. It's the shit that you have to maintain a couple of years down the line. (Not saying that this is bad -- just a random rant)

Ha ha ha, this is awesome. Thank you for writing this. You have to admit, benefits that are provided sound amazing, hard to look over.

It is interesting times for sure.

Post reply on HN