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

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#61

Post by niix »

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 can agree that it is a bit overwhelming to keep up with the new 0day hotness. But in all honesty it's also exciting. Things are changing constantly, and mostly for the better. I am particularly glad to be a front end developer and enjoy the constant strive to learn the newest thing.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#62

Post by hardwaresofton »

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…

Absolutely agree. Every time I start a new project, I start with knockout, then realize I need more of the bits, and then migrate to something else with more "built-in".

On an app I'm currently developing, I've actually adopted the pattern of using knockout with some other libraries (directory, for routing, mainly) and actually have found relative success.

One thing I have been tossing around in my head though is creating a web development pattern (I'm really just avoiding using the word "framework" here) that does this by default (and intentionally).

My vision for it is to be a marrying of knockout (for data-binding & templating & components), director.js (for routing, I think pager.js, while well intentioned, is too complex), and requireJS for async loading, with everything but knockout being optional.

I'm thinking of calling it chainmail (because the power is in the combination/linking together of the small libraries) -- would you be interested in something like that?

Also, have you checked out the components feature of knockout lately? it's awesome

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#63

Post by hardwaresofton »

bronson wrote: post #55
hardwaresofton wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

all good points -- will take this in mind when recommending phantom in the future. While I haven't run into the same # of issues, but I can absolutely see why you guys didn't like it, and the possible issues I could run into some day using it.

Also agree with writing tests that devs will actually run, though I think that is going away with the advancements in orchestration/devops. If buildbot or jenkins can run the tests then you may not have to rely on a human's willingness to run it. Speed's another matter though.

Oh and no, they don't suggest using Jasmine to set up the application (not that I read) -- that was just my assumption (that you could). And that's a very good point, if they don't pay attention to testing (and make it very obvious/easy), then it will fall by the wayside.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#65

Post by whatsgood »

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…

any chance you'd mind comparing to enyo.js?

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#66

Post by dkarapetyan »

TheSisb2 wrote: post #44
dkarapetyan wrote: post #8

That's how you do a client-side framework or any framework for that matter, forward thinking with backwards compatibility and no custom nonsense tying it to a specific language (AtScript).

Is this backwards compatible? I thought Evergreen browsers meant IE10+

I meant in terms of the design of the framework and the emphasis from day 1 on making everything modular and interoperable with the rest of the JavaScript ecosystem, e.g. jQuery, Knockout.js, etc.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#67

Post by benmorris »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #62
monk_e_boy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely agree. Every time I start a new project, I start with knockout, then realize I need more of the bits, and then migrate to something else with more "built-in". On an app I'm currently developing, I've actually adopted the pattern of using knockout with some other libraries (directory, for routing, mainly) and actually have found relative success. One thing I have been tossing around in my head though is cre…

I'm curious if you've used Durandal. What you're describing is essentially what Durandal is. Modular framework built on knockout and require. The router in durandal works well and is one of the pieces which influenced Angular 2.0's router from what I've read. Just glancing through Rob's new framework the router also seems very similar to Durandal 2.0.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#68

Post by marpstar »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #62
monk_e_boy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely agree. Every time I start a new project, I start with knockout, then realize I need more of the bits, and then migrate to something else with more "built-in". On an app I'm currently developing, I've actually adopted the pattern of using knockout with some other libraries (directory, for routing, mainly) and actually have found relative success. One thing I have been tossing around in my head though is cre…

we've built essentially what you're talking (though we hand-rolled our router) about where I work. As the applications grow larger, you really have to be more diligent with your memory management in Knockout, which is the only thing that really gets in my way.

That being said, I'd really be interested in something like you've described.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#69

Post by hardwaresofton »

benmorris wrote: post #67
hardwaresofton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agree. Every time I start a new project, I start with knockout, then realize I need more of the bits, and then migrate to something else with more "built-in". On an app I'm currently developing, I've actually adopted the pattern of using knockout with some other libraries (directory, for routing, mainly) and actually have found relative success. One thing I have been tossing around in my head though is cre…

I'm curious if you've used Durandal. What you're describing is essentially what Durandal is. Modular framework built on knockout and require. The router in durandal works well and is one of the pieces which influenced Angular 2.0's router from what I've read. Just glancing through Rob's new framework the router also seems very similar to Durandal 2.0.

So I've actually taken a look and tried to read through Durandal's docs -- I haven't actually used it in a project though (or even kicked the tires on it in a TODO app or something)...

I found the docs really hard to follow, and they seemed really complicated (and I didn't think it should have been)... It is entirely possible (and even likely) that I didn't put in much effort. But knockout (and tools like it) hit such a sweet spot for me because they are (almost) dead-simple.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#70

Post by hardwaresofton »

marpstar wrote: post #68
hardwaresofton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agree. Every time I start a new project, I start with knockout, then realize I need more of the bits, and then migrate to something else with more "built-in". On an app I'm currently developing, I've actually adopted the pattern of using knockout with some other libraries (directory, for routing, mainly) and actually have found relative success. One thing I have been tossing around in my head though is cre…

we've built essentially what you're talking (though we hand-rolled our router) about where I work. As the applications grow larger, you really have to be more diligent with your memory management in Knockout, which is the only thing that really gets in my way. That being said, I'd really be interested in something like you've described.

Glad to hear! It really weighs on me that I'd be adding yet another web framework to the already-too-large pool of them, but if it gets done at all, I will definitely be aiming for simplicity and lack-of-surprises above all.

Right now I see the MV* web framework landscape (from lightest to heaviest) as:

knockout---mithril------angular-----backbone+marionette-----ember

I'm aiming for chainmail to fit inbetween knockout and mithril (I consider it less than mithril because it will not include a JS-based dom structure, and will be using templating from knockout.

Post reply on HN