Introducing Aurelia • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#21

Post by watty » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 8:27 PM UTC

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).

Completely agree on backwards compatibility but AtScript isn't required for Angular 2.0.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#22

Post by bronson » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #10

brentvatne wrote: post #6

This looks a bit like Angular 1.3 and 2.0 to me - DI, binding and repeats look like ng-model and ng-repeat.. I'm curious to see more when the full docs are out though. No mention of isomorphism or a virtual DOM, seems to be a bit behind the zeitgeist.

I don't know why you missed it, but it mentions both isomorphism (code that can be run client side or server side) and the virtual DOM (web components, etc...).

I missed it too. Got a link or something?

Or do you mean the hint that some of the code can run server-side? That seems obvious, and is not in itself isomorphism.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#23

Post by ttrashh » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

We use Durandal as our SPA framework and we love it. So glad to see this. Rob knows how to write a framework.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#24

Post by alxbrun » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

No pun intended against Aurelia, but this reminds me...

https://twitter.com/iamdevloper/status/540481335362875392

"I think I've had milk last longer than some JavaScript frameworks."

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#25

Post by bronson » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

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?

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#26

Post by ZenoArrow » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

rabbyte wrote: post #14

ZenoArrow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you missed it, but it mentions both isomorphism (code that can be run client side or server side) and the virtual DOM (web components, etc...).

Correct me if I'm wrong but web components can use the native DOM without depending on a virtual DOM.

Not as far as I know. What I can tell you is that web component polyfills like Polymer end up partially recreating the shadow DOM, and that's a lot of work, unlikely to have been undertaken unless it was necessary.

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#27

Post by ZenoArrow » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

bronson wrote: post #22

ZenoArrow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you missed it, but it mentions both isomorphism (code that can be run client side or server side) and the virtual DOM (web components, etc...).

I missed it too. Got a link or something? Or do you mean the hint that some of the code can run server-side? That seems obvious, and is not in itself isomorphism.

In that case, we need to establish what isomorphism is. What's your definition?

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#28

Post by ZenoArrow » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:19 PM UTC

brentvatne wrote: post #20

ZenoArrow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you missed it, but it mentions both isomorphism (code that can be run client side or server side) and the virtual DOM (web components, etc...).

This is not mentioned in either the blog post or the docs, at least not easily findable with a cmd+f "Use some of the libraries on the server with NodeJS. i.e. DI." - some , and I'd expect an explicit mentioning of isomorphism if it were possible at the moment to render it on the server side. Shadow DOM != Virtual DOM. I mean the React-style Virtual DOM.

What are the main differences between the shadow DOM and the virtual DOM?

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#29

Post by thom » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

sunsu wrote: post #5

My wife's name is Aurelia and its really weird to see a web framework named this. Its like naming a framework: "Thomas". Example: Me: What tools/framework did you use to build the app? You: Aurelia. Me: Oh cool, I used Thomas. You: Yeah, I thought about using Thomas, but stuck with Aurelia because it offered better features.

Okay, so I'm the only one that immediately thinks of an Mtg card.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiver...

Re: Introducing Aurelia

#30

Post by nwah1 » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

From a development standpoint, it reminds me of Silverlight and WPF. I'm very happy to see this. MVVM is a simple but powerful pattern.