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

Introducing Aurelia

blog.durandal.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#51

Post by monk_e_boy »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #41

If I read/watched correctly, what's really different about this framework is: 1. Large focus on ES6/ES7 2. JSPM 3. MVVM as made popular by libraries like KnockoutJS (which Durandal was built upon). I think this is awesome. While I don't plan on rewriting an app I'm already working on in it, I think the interface to the framework is very very simple (which is refreshing), due in large part to the tight ES6 integration…

Having tried nearly all the JS frameworks, I really like KnockoutJS. There are a few bits missing from it, but for someone like me who doesn't want a 1 page app knockout fits into a many page website really well. You can enhance pages as you go. Add a few nice GUI bits, some ajax to load and save... knockout makes it all very lovely.

But all the frameworks, the view syntax/binding gubbins is horrid. Hard to debug, easy to make syntax errors. Bleugh :(

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#52

Post by bronson »

jabbrass wrote: post #49
bronson wrote: post #25

The video, the intro, the docs, ... None of them seem to mention testing. That's a disappointment. Anyone got a link on how to test an Aurelia app?

http://github.com/aurelia/framework under Running the Tests. Looks like it uses Karma for unit testing.

These test the framework and look rather incomplete: https://github.com/aurelia/framework/tree/74176a5a6389b304d1... :)

It doesn't really cover testing the application, right? Or, is the implication that app writers should do the same thing?

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#53

Post by spankalee »

Despite the claim of supporting "WebComponents" I can't see any evidence in the source that it actually does.

There are no calls to document.registerElement() in the framework or templating repositories, and it looks like any element registration is happening against a proprietary registry, so that Aurelia components won't be available in standard web pages outside of the Aurelia framework, which would be the exact same situation we already have with Ember, Angular, React, etc.

Can someone from the Aurelia team clarify this?

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#54

Post by shadowmint »

netfire wrote: post #32

Looks interesting. It would be nice if they were more specific about what browsers the framework supports though. There's a phrase that you can "Leverage the technology of the future but target today's Evergreen Browsers." That's a nice bit of copywriting, but it doesn't instantly tell me which browsers are supported. It would be nice to have an official supported list.

Basically not IE.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#55

Post by bronson »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #46
bronson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phantom is unreliable, barely maintained, and brutally slow. I think one of the reasons Angular has seen such remarkable adoption is because it made testing easy, quick, and idiomatic.

A little more detail please? Unreliable What version of phantom are you referring to? Do you have any specific examples? Barely maintained They do have a lot of tickets open, but in uses of phantom (wrapped by nightmarejs), I have not run into many issues that even required filing tickets/requiring maintenance. 90% of the use case of something like phantom is rolling around the page and clicking on stuff/filling out…

Most recently, this forced me to upgrade: https://github.com/Medium/phantomjs/issues/161 And that forced upgrade broke the cookie mock/stub code that we wrote. It took almost a day of thrashing to fix the failures, none of which could be seen in a real browser. Super irritating.

I've also had to work around weird JS issues that only affect Phantom, and corrupted screenshots making it rather hard to see what's going wrong. For our team's time-spent vs time-saved, Phantom has been a waste. Our app is very JS-heavy, but that's why I thought Phantom would be a good idea.

I think the most important kind of test is the kind that developers will actually use. If tests are hard to understand, hard to run, unreliable, or slow, then they won't get used (Selenium!).

I just want idiomatic, quick, easy-to-write tests so regressions in our app are much less likely to happen. Angular's approach met those requirements pretty well and that was a big influence to our choice to use it (two years ago, data point of one). It looks like React has a good approach to testing too.

If the Aurelia docs suggest using Jasmine to test the application, especially if they help setting up html fixtures and data, then that's encouraging. But I don't think they do. For now it's all DIY so, if I join your Aurelia team, I have to spend a bunch of time learning how your testing works? In my experience, that means your project will most likely have very little testing.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#56

Post by d357r0y3r »

shruubi wrote: post #33

I hate to sound jaded and cynical, but am I the only one who feels weird about a new framework announcement containing information for getting training and consulting? I understand that there is no money in releasing free frameworks, but it seems a little soon to be selling consulting and training on an early-access preview...

I would actually prefer that a framework be backed by some kind of business. When it's just a guy moonlighting, you never know when he might disappear and you've now got a production app that's being supported by "the community".

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#57

Post by pygy_ »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #51
hardwaresofton wrote: post #41

If I read/watched correctly, what's really different about this framework is: 1. Large focus on ES6/ES7 2. JSPM 3. MVVM as made popular by libraries like KnockoutJS (which Durandal was built upon). I think this is awesome. While I don't plan on rewriting an app I'm already working on in it, I think the interface to the framework is very very simple (which is refreshing), due in large part to the tight ES6 integration…

Having tried nearly all the JS frameworks, I really like KnockoutJS. There are a few bits missing from it, but for someone like me who doesn't want a 1 page app knockout fits into a many page website really well. You can enhance pages as you go. Add a few nice GUI bits, some ajax to load and save... knockout makes it all very lovely. But all the frameworks, the view syntax/binding gubbins is horrid. Hard to debug, ea…

Have you tried Mithril? The views are defined in JS, eschewing the "syntax/binding gubbins" you appear to dislike.

http://lhorie.github.io/mithril/

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#58

Post by d357r0y3r »

optimusclimb wrote: post #35

YET. ANOTHER. Javascript framework. This is what people are talking about in countless blog posts (that also make their way to the front page of HN.) So glad I'm not a front end dev trying to keep up with this world.

I don't really see why this is a problem. When my team started using Durandal, the learning curve wasn't very steep, and in the end, it became way faster to create new pages/features.

If a framework learns from the mistakes of the past and builds on previous success, then I welcome it.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#59

Post by bronson »

emilsedgh wrote: post #48
bronson wrote: post #25

The video, the intro, the docs, ... None of them seem to mention testing. That's a disappointment. Anyone got a link on how to test an Aurelia app?

From the homepage: By combining ES6 modules with a simple, yet powerful Dependency Injection Container, we make it easy for you to create highly cohesive, yet minimally coupled code, making unit testing a snap.

Sounds great. Should be easy to demonstrate? (especially in a 30 minute intro tutorial)

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#60

Post by niix »

shruubi wrote: post #33

I hate to sound jaded and cynical, but am I the only one who feels weird about a new framework announcement containing information for getting training and consulting? I understand that there is no money in releasing free frameworks, but it seems a little soon to be selling consulting and training on an early-access preview...

He has been doing the same thing for his other framework that has been around for much longer. I assume the note about training is directed towards those who have use his Durandal training/consulting and may be interested in doing the same for this new framework.
Post reply on HN