21–30 of 190 posts
As a bit of a meta point, I find it really distracting when authors make random sentences bold. What you believe to be important is not necessarily what I'll find important, and the added emphasis breaks my flow.
As a bit of a meta point, I find it really distracting when authors make random sentences bold. What you believe to be important is not necessarily what I'll find important, and the added emphasis breaks my flow.
Honest question: why would someone use this instead of React? From my point of view, React solved a real problem. JS before React (at least old-skool, with jQuery & co.) was simply unmaintainable. It was often easier to thow old projects away and start anew than to maintain what inevitably became a tangled mess of callbacks and global variables. Not because of incompetency of developers (at least I hope so ;) but bec…
For the same/similar reasons, more or less. You get a great type system, merlin(a great analysis tool), faster compilation, all kinds of great compile time checks, and you can still use react.
Honest question: why would someone use this instead of React? From my point of view, React solved a real problem. JS before React (at least old-skool, with jQuery & co.) was simply unmaintainable. It was often easier to thow old projects away and start anew than to maintain what inevitably became a tangled mess of callbacks and global variables. Not because of incompetency of developers (at least I hope so ;) but bec…
I'm always confused by statements like "You don't need Redux, you have reducer components". Reducer components don't solve the problem of a centralized/shared/common state and interactions between components.
Honest question: why would someone use this instead of React? From my point of view, React solved a real problem. JS before React (at least old-skool, with jQuery & co.) was simply unmaintainable. It was often easier to thow old projects away and start anew than to maintain what inevitably became a tangled mess of callbacks and global variables. Not because of incompetency of developers (at least I hope so ;) but bec…
Sandbox, bad licencing and real bad conditions and terms.
Privacy matters to me. Fact is, facebook do not provide it. They sell my data to most bidder.
I'm reminded of the Hacker News post that introduced me to React from David Nolen back in 2013, where he first introduced ClojureScript's take on React, Om: http://swannodette.github.io/2013/12/17/the-future-of-javasc... Interested to take this for a spin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not any less convenient than React appears to be. Disclaimer: I've only used it for small Todo project, I'm not a front end guy. Disdisclaimer: I've not used React at all. However, if you need really strong JS interop, consider something like F#'s Fable. F# is gaining a lot of momentum and now that SAFE stack is apparently Microsoft-blessed, I expect it to continue growing even more.
1k upvotes. I check in on Fable and F# semi frequently but SAFE has somehow slipped under my radar. I wonder if the ionide project will get some extra support.. Suave though... Nothing against Suave, but it's not the Phoenix competitor the ecosystem is in dire need of. I was under the impression some newer frameworks like Giraffe were going to fill that void..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same/similar reasons, more or less. You get a great type system, merlin(a great analysis tool), faster compilation, all kinds of great compile time checks, and you can still use react.
Those are all good things, but they aren't really the same reason. Parent describes JQuery to React as spaghetti code -> reasonable code, whereas React to ReasonML sounds like reasonable code -> reasonable code (with better tooling).