51–60 of 105 posts
Instead of the down voting nonsense, read this: http://computationallyendowed.com/blog/2014/07/20/reactive-m... Basically: view m0 = r0 view (m1 = handler e0 m0) = r1 view (m2 = handler e1 m1) = r2 Or just down vote and learn nothing.
"Basically"? I'm finding it difficult to answer your post with anything other than incredulity. Either way this post doesn't negate the fact that the attitude presented in the OP pretty much stinks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow, what an aggressive way to promote your own little open source app. Yeah, makes me not want to try it. This guy should let someone else handle the marketing.
Maybe his marketing strategy was to only draw in people who use technology based on the merits of said technology and purposefully alienate the people who need an emotional connection to be convinced? I can certainly see the merits of trying to gain pragmatic mind share first before the buzzword technology crowd joins in and makes things more complicated.
Is this slide a joke I don't get? The whole presentation seems to focus on terminology and buzzwords more than discussing merits as far as I can tell.
EDIT: The authors commented and I'm going to assume this is an example of missing context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Basically"? I'm finding it difficult to answer your post with anything other than incredulity. Either way this post doesn't negate the fact that the attitude presented in the OP pretty much stinks.
Christ almighty, this is pathetic. Did you read the link?
It reminds me a lot of Gabriel's divide between the New Jersey approach versus the MIT approach---React is far more viral in its current form, but better technology certain lives further down the path.
I went to the Boston React meetup a few nights ago to hear Pete Hunt speak about React. He was a wonderful speaker and described nicely how React learned some of the same lessons that REST did making it superior to basic message passing and bloated/leaky distributed object mechanisms (blech). He also projected a very pragmatic POV from the React dev team---they want things to be right, but they also want things to be functional in the perspective of the way most applications are built today.
I was eager and jumped on some of the problems he suggested the React time was facing trying to integrate something like animation into React. At this point we jump from a sequence of instantaneous updates to a more game-like continuous redraw effort. Pete mentioned that the current effort here was to try to use technology like RxJS observers to get more reactivity and this seems aligned with the OP here.
Personally, I think animation lives most nicely in the domain of continuous time, "true" FRP which is mostly ignored by the current wave of Javascript FRP libraries. Perhaps for good reason since most modern implementations ideas of (again, "true") FRP are challenging to implement efficiently and the semantic model is probably far too large (Zeno processes, difficulty with infinitesimal delay).
But the advantage of FRP is that you can specify things like animation independently of the icky details like event passing and sampling rate and let those be determined at a later time when your FRP eDSL gets compiled into a more refined event-passing network. In other words, FRP languages hide a vast number of irrelevant and muddying details in a way that has a consistent denotation and can (perhaps!) be compiled efficiently into a push/pull message passing network.
He implies that Grunt is dead on the first slide. Well don't I feel stupid since I still use it. I guess it's not cool anymore? I missed the memo. Wait, maybe I'm not cool? What do the cool kids use now instead of Grunt?
He implies that Grunt is dead on the first slide. Well don't I feel stupid since I still use it. I guess it's not cool anymore? I missed the memo. Wait, maybe I'm not cool? What do the cool kids use now instead of Grunt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Christ almighty, this is pathetic. Did you read the link?
Yes. Does it negate the bad attitude of the OP's presentation (no)? An attitude that you seem to share?
People are really missing the point here. Follow staltz on twitter, he really knows his stuff. React is very good, however it missing a few key things that would make it awesome and more consistent - namely compositional event processing. Where React falls short from perfect is by using imperative code for its lifecycle functions. He's not bashing React, he's educating you about an even better way. If you care about…