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

Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 382 posts

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#271

Post by bryanrasmussen »

mattmanser wrote: post #268
avinium wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t happen to have a link to that DailyWTF would you? Would love to read the discussion.

I was having trouble earlier, but have tracked it down: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Sketchy-Skecherscom The featured comment at the bottom is from the original devs. One of the early comments is that it only worked properly on Firefox, which is wrong. IE6+ had excellent, extremely fast XSLT support. The company I worked for at the time actually had an enterprise app that didn't work properly on FF as it relied o…

Looking at it, xsl:for-each inside of xsl:for-each should be xsl:template with it's own mode.

however it's also really too trivial and really straightforward and boring as a piece of code to be mentioned as a WTF, having difficulty understanding that code would just be a case of not understanding the language, which is also a thing that happens.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#272

Post by sametmax »

k__ wrote: post #85
_bxg1 wrote: post #79

I've used React full-time at work for a year and a half now, and I did a personal project in Vue for a while to try it out, before converting it to React. There are some things I really, really hate about React. It is not kind or accommodating (Vue is both of these things), but it gives you control. I was head-over-heels for the first few days of using Vue; "breath of fresh air" is exactly the phrase I'd use. But the…

Vue reminded me so much of Ember that I could not understand how people could think of fresh air...

Embed is more complicated than vue to use. Vue has components. Updating the dom is mostly mutating your component attributes. That's it. Nothing else.

With ember you got controllers, models, inheritances, many special methods...

The VueJS documentation also makes it easier to get in. The Ember beginer tutorial starts with a full fledge app with a cli to install and use and features routing and addons O_o

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#273

Post by caseymarquis »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #160

My problem with current gen frameworks is composition and modularity with components. Making components stateless and having all data come in as props from parents is good for modularity but how do you pass data back to the parent? This is where the modularity becomes awkward. I know of two ways in vue to do this and both ways either completely break or make modularity awkward. The first way is to signal the parent w…

Creating a bus with a new vue object might be what you're looking for if vuex is truly too much boilerplate.

You can also implement v-model, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#274

Post by mattmanser »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #271
mattmanser wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was having trouble earlier, but have tracked it down: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Sketchy-Skecherscom The featured comment at the bottom is from the original devs. One of the early comments is that it only worked properly on Firefox, which is wrong. IE6+ had excellent, extremely fast XSLT support. The company I worked for at the time actually had an enterprise app that didn't work properly on FF as it relied o…

Looking at it, xsl:for-each inside of xsl:for-each should be xsl:template with it's own mode. however it's also really too trivial and really straightforward and boring as a piece of code to be mentioned as a WTF, having difficulty understanding that code would just be a case of not understanding the language, which is also a thing that happens.

I seem to remember that was just a practical thing, sometimes you couldn't be bothered to split it into two.

The context of that article was more that doing XML/XSLT at all was a WTF.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#275

Post by heyoni »

aylmao wrote: post #41
stupidcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If plain, idiomatic React so great, why does every semi-complex React app end up bringing in a separate state management framework like Redux or MobX? The reason is that while you may be able to break up your HTML into a composable hierarchy of purely-functional components, the actual data and state you need to distribute to them has a structure that is completely unrelated to how its laid out in the DOM. In a comple…

> as soon as you're in the real world, you hit its limitations very quickly. Isn't a good chunk of AirBnB, Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, The New York Times and Dropbox written in React? The built-in state management has limitations, of course. I see it best for keeping state relevant to display-- React is supposed to be a "view" library, not a state management one.

Is there a way to tell or are we going by what these companies disclose?

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#276

Post by jbergens »

allover wrote: post #33
stupidcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If plain, idiomatic React so great, why does every semi-complex React app end up bringing in a separate state management framework like Redux or MobX? The reason is that while you may be able to break up your HTML into a composable hierarchy of purely-functional components, the actual data and state you need to distribute to them has a structure that is completely unrelated to how its laid out in the DOM. In a comple…

> If plain, idiomatic React so great, why does every semi-complex React app end up bringing in a separate state management framework like Redux or MobX? Sadly it seems that's mainly been cargo-culted. It's not the case that React+Redux is the equivalent to say Angular, but by some unfortunate accident due to Facebook's announcement of Flux, and then the hype around Redux as a 'better Flux', people started assuming Re…

Also, MobX is for most devs easier to understand and use than Redux and more similar to Vue and Angular. I think most small react projects should start with no external state management or mobx and only switch if they need it. Unless they already know redux very well and think it suits their project.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#277

Post by matwood »

mattmanser wrote: post #234
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your tree of UI widgets, and >Your tree of data which feeds those widgets Not with a well-designed XML format and XSL-T! But hmm, nobody seems to use that anymore either.

Having done this in the wild a while ago, it seemed to be hard for most of the other developers to do anything complex with it. You either really got it and then could do wonderful things, or you sorta muddled along with it and it was ok but it was like they were wearing a straitjacket. I made a pivot table control out of it, with almost all the logic inside the XLST, it was amazingly fast compared to IE6's javascrip…

> Having done this in the wild a while ago, it seemed to be hard for most of the other developers to do anything complex with it.

Same. Long ago I replaced an expensive Crystal Report solution with reports delivered as XML/XSLTs that used IE's feature at the time of applying the XSLT at the browser. It worked very well and provided nice interactive reports. I also wrote a bunch of cookbooks (for lack of a better term) that allowed the business analysts to create additional reports.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#278

Post by darkerside »

davedx wrote: post #254
Ronsenshi wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's possibly meaning that if you completely rewrite framework it would lead to something like what happened to Angular when it was rewritten and promptly lost huge number of followers/users?

Angular didn't lose mindshare because of TypeScript, it lost mindshare because they completely changed the API of Angular, meaning a bunch of companies had to do expensive ports/complete rewrites/switch to new tech. A lot of companies are still stuck on Angular 1 for this reason. Most Angular devs I know are happy to use TypeScript. (In fact going out on a limb, most JS devs I know).

In this particular case, with a BDFL in Evan, there's probably a much higher chance of maintaining sanity between major releases. People were worried about the change to Vue 2.0, but it mostly sunsetted features that complicated the framework and doubled down on an elegant component system. Seems obvious to say, but frameworks probably get fractured in geometric proportion to the number of powerful authors working on them.

Re: Vue.js: the good, the meh, and the ugly

#280

Post by baby »

shakna wrote: post #70
sharpercoder wrote: post #16

One particular weak point of Vue is it's dependency on build tools. I spend a few days buiding a great app, and then another few days on getting the build apps configured right with Vue. You google from one error message to another, where each message is unclear and no relation to any build tool/plugin/library/script is made. I really like Vue for the many great strong points it offers. But I'm equally ready to compl…

Version with debug enabled: Production version: If you need something more complex, vue-cli has webpack inbuilt: vue init webpack my-project cd my-project npm install npm run dev Or if you need webpack, but not the complexity, swap the word 'webpack' in the above command to 'webpack-simple'. ... Vue has already done the hard work of getting the build apps configured for you.

Vue also has a graphic interface now, try `vue ui`
Post reply on HN