I added your comment about the quirky syntax to my article. I also added a section about hot module replacement. I believe the experience with JavaScript Services is pretty good with Aurelia, which it still provides support for up on github (they have Aurelia, Vue and Knockout on a separate branch.) If you haven't tried it, it's definitely worth it.
Also, I'm wondering if anyone has tried Redux? Redux is a Facebook technology that manages state in such a way that after hot module replacement, that state is retained. It is generally used with React, but can be used with other JavaScript libraries. An example: with the default JavaScript services template for React+Redux, you can run the app, go to the counter page and click on the Increment button and increment the counter. Say after incrementing the counter up to "5" you then decide to change the code to increment the counter by 3 every click. After making the change and hitting save, hot module replacement kicks in automatically, recompiles your code and replaces it in the browser. With Redux, the value stays at 5, and the next time you click it, the value will be "8". Without it, it would have to reset back to zero, which is what it does with all the other JavaScript libraries out of the box. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Corneliu I. Tusnea <corne...@acorns.com.au> wrote: > I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I know Wal also on this list uses > Aurelia). > > For me Aurelia is has one of the best designs possible. Clean and easy to > use. Everything is simply obvious. > With Aurelia I never had to think "how do you do this or that". It's all > simple and natural. > DI is beautiful, binding is obvious, templates are easy to read and the > html extensions like `repeat.for`, `.bind` or `.call' are easy to remember > and use. > When I look at Angular2 my eyes hurt: *[hidden]* , **ngFor, #field.* I > mean, seriously, Angular 2 has an abuse of special characters. > > With Aurelia, once you learn to build custom attributes and custom > elements you exponentially grow productivity. > > That's my choice :) > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread >> and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to >> close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From >> a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is >> like a virus that people have caught that causes hysteria. It's a gigantic >> wobbling Turboencabulator >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator> propped up by a >> half-baked scripting language a guy wrote as a hobby. If the time comes >> when I have to put JS on my CV or write JS anything to make a living , >> then it will be the nail in my retirement coffin. >> >> Some things I want to see before I die are: discovery of >> extra-terrestrial life, the (peaceful) collapse of the North Korean >> dictatorship and the extinction of JavaScript. >> >> *GK* >> >> On 24 August 2017 at 19:04, Tom Rutter <therut...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now >>> forced to look at this stuff. >>> >>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise >>>> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault >>>> from people who are still in a circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but >>>> will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going >>>> on any of the frameworks. >>>> >>>> Part of the decision to go with angular is also the proliferation of >>>> angular 1 apps out there, which was chosen pretty much for the same >>>> reasons. There will still be years of support required for Angular 1 apps, >>>> and much work converting them to angular 2, which is really the only path >>>> available for those apps. >>>> >>>> When I first decided to learn angular it was because there were no jobs >>>> at the time for my traditional Microsoft tech stack. At the time it freaked >>>> me out as I recognised that the world had moved on and I had to quickly get >>>> on board or be dead in the water. I analysed the market, figured out where >>>> the jobs were and viola, the rest is history. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24 Aug 2017 6:39 PM, "Tom Rutter" <therut...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really >>>>> felt right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at >>>>> Vue >>>>> now. >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks >>>>>> ago, only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa >>>>>> templates. >>>>>> They will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. >>>>>> Both >>>>>> Vue and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies >>>>>> to make up the stack, hence the inclusion of redux, which is now part of >>>>>> Facebooks offering. Angular is the most complete/enterprise ready of all >>>>>> the frameworks, but it has its own impediments, predominantly being it's >>>>>> stupid syntax. Vue is out performing both angular and react at the moment >>>>>> on github. But stars can be rigged, so I'm prepared to wait a bit longer >>>>>> before taking a more serious look. >>>>>> >>>>>> T. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24 Aug 2017 5:29 PM, "Greg Keogh" <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-sh >>>>>>>> ould-i-choose-enterprise-tony-wright >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem >>>>>>> is still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one >>>>>>> ... Vue.js -- *GK* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >
