|
They still have the opportunity to call their next revision TryAngular.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I would not recommend using Angular these days. Why? I use angular and its a very robust and opinionated framework that does a good job of managing the front end. With typescript, angular 4 is a pleasure to use, and it makes a lot of things that would be a pain in the rear end to do otherwise pretty doable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Rubellavator posted:They still have the opportunity to call their next revision TryAngular. TheCog posted:angular 4 ..nevermind
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I would not recommend using Angular these days. Yeah, why? It works really well for what I need it to do. They seems to have addressed most of the pain points from AngularJS without introducing too many new ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
I’m sure they’ll come out with Angular 5 eventually  I guess I’m just an Angular racist. I used 1 a couple years back and had a bad experience, and I just like React better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I’m sure they’ll come out with Angular 5 eventually 1 was garbage. I first worked with angular 1.3 and it was a loving nightmare that I would never go back to. So yeah if that's your experience I get where you're coming from. Rubellavator posted:..nevermind Fun fact, they just skipped angular 3 entirely. I have no idea why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I’m sure they’ll come out with Angular 5 eventually Angular as a comprehensive framework is not a bad choice, especially if you're not looking to cobble together your own solution from multiple libraries. TheCog posted:1 was garbage. I first worked with angular 1.3 and it was a loving nightmare that I would never go back to. So yeah if that's your experience I get where you're coming from. TheCog posted:Fun fact, they just skipped angular 3 entirely. I have no idea why.  ). "Angular 3" was skipped because, while all of the other internal packages were "v2", the router was "v3". They decided to reset versioning by calling "Angular v3" "Angular 4" so as to keep all of the internal package version numbers in sync.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Angular 1.5+ (AngularJS) is really good but I wouldn't use it for a new project. Angular (2+) is also really good but it's a monster and chances are you don't need everything it offers. It's mostly for SPAs, unlike AngularJS, Vue or React which are a lot more flexible. Typescript is loving amazing though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Is there any reason to avoid defining PropTypes in React? I know recently they were moved out of React and into their own prop-types NPM package, but aside from that I haven't seen a whole lot of talk about them. Did Flow supersede them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
You should use them if you're not using something else already, like flow or typescript.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Nolgthorn posted:Just for numbers, I'd do it myself... Please don’t post links to w3schools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Chenghiz posted:Please don’t post links to w3schools. Is MDN better? The same information always seems to be on both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Nolgthorn posted:Is MDN better? The same information always seems to be on both. MDN is much better maintained, and the browser compatibility section is extremely useful if you do this for a living. w3schools is generally 5 years out of date and has no information about browser compatibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
I think I just read somewhere that Microsoft and Google have both committed to maintaining MDN along with Mozilla.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
I don't wanna sound like one of those people who thinks Microsoft Google and Mozilla have all run their course but I'm that guy. Who's running the other one, the w3 schools?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Someone called Refsnes Data that doesn’t do anything else of note. W3schools is also notorious for providing outdated or just plain wrong information. Edit: and I want to point out that the maintainers of the major browsers are going to be the best at publishing what their browser does and does not support, and also has the most impactful voice on what browsers will support in the future. From that perspective it will be very hard to argue that any of those three has “run their course.” zombienietzsche fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:MDN is much better maintained, and the browser compatibility section is extremely useful if you do this for a living. w3schools is generally 5 years out of date and has no information about browser compatibility. MDN is really good. If they had a 'try it yourself' section like w3schools, it'd be incredible. I would add https://plainjs.com/ for people who have been overly-reliant on jQuery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Nolgthorn posted:I don't wanna sound like one of those people who thinks Microsoft Google and Mozilla have all run their course but I'm that guy. Who's running the other one, the w3 schools? So, who would you like to document what their browsers do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
I would like to see documentation by the World Wide Web Consortium, which is where language features and standards come from. And I want browser makers like those companies you mentioned to implement those standards properly. Mozilla fell into the same "social posturing" politically fuelled pit Google fell into and I don't think Microsoft is doing much better. I care about technology not what organisations the CEO is currently donating to. Why does that go with the technology I am using? If these companies are the ones designing browser features we're not in a good place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
I don't really know of any standards where I'd rather have the standards committee documentation to rather than the standard implementors. The implementation pretty much always differs somewhat from the standard. Besides Google, etc basically are the W3C.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Besides Google, etc basically are the W3C. there's no escaping them is there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Also, W3C is involved in it. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/10/18/mozilla-brings-microsoft-google-w3c-samsung-together-create-cross-browser-documentation-mdn/
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
geeves posted:I would add https://plainjs.com/ for people who have been overly-reliant on jQuery. http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ to help people transition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
are there any good examples of typescript libraries with documentation generated from type information and/or jsdoc? the jsdoc generated documentation i've dug up seems really terrible and it's not clear to me how to add things like module level documentation
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Nolgthorn posted:I would like to see documentation by the World Wide Web Consortium, which is where language features and standards come from. And I want browser makers like those companies you mentioned to implement those standards properly. W3C has regularly had significant differences with implementations and for the rest you can take your own advice and focus on technology rather than what other goals big companies pursue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Nolgthorn posted:I would like to see documentation by the World Wide Web Consortium, which is where language features and standards come from. And I want browser makers like those companies you mentioned to implement those standards properly. The thing is, often times browser vendors make their browser work with a feature before that feature is 100% finalized by the W3C. This is because the W3C often takes way too long to finalize a standard and how we got the WHATWG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Nolgthorn posted:I would like to see documentation by the World Wide Web Consortium Yes, W3C champion of DRM. It's been 4 years and I'm still amazed they thought that was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
geeves posted:Yes, W3C champion of DRM. It's been 4 years and I'm still amazed they thought that was a good idea. Yeah, this whole thing is a fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Yeah, this whole thing is a fiasco. On a second thought, it's not all the W3C and I'm not surprised Google and Apple are on board though (and probably influencing W3C). They're selling movies through Youtube (or Itunes) and gotta appear to protecting that money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
geeves posted:On a second thought, it's not all the W3C and I'm not surprised Google and Apple are on board though (and probably influencing W3C). They're selling movies through Youtube (or Itunes) and gotta appear to protecting that money. Bingo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
What do you guys recommend when using polyfills with create-react-app? I just ejected an app today to insert only the polyfills I needed, but I know there’s ways to do it without ejecting
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Grump posted:What do you guys recommend when using polyfills with create-react-app? I just ejected an app today to insert only the polyfills I needed, but I know there’s ways to do it without ejecting No need to eject: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43756211/best-way-to-polyfill-es6-features-in-react-app-that-uses-create-react-app
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:No need to eject: ah. I'll keep this in mind in the future. Besides for losing out on the configuration abstraction, what exactly are the cons of ejecting a create-react-app?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Grump posted:ah. I'll keep this in mind in the future. You lose brain-dead easy updating of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with what ejecting means in this context, can someone expand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:I'm not familiar with what ejecting means in this context, can someone expand? https://github.com/facebookincubator/create-react-app/blob/master/packages/react-scripts/template/README.md#npm-run-eject
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:https://github.com/facebookincubator/create-react-app/blob/master/packages/react-scripts/template/README.md#npm-run-eject Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
I wish CRA would allow raw file imports. Getting pretty sick of converting all my svgs to react components just to inline them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
prom candy posted:I wish CRA would allow raw file imports. Getting pretty sick of converting all my svgs to react components just to inline them. Well, you could always create a plugin that does just that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Odette posted:Well, you could always create a plugin that does just that. There's a webpack loader that imports them as strings, which you can load with dangerouslySetInnerHtml (which we've been using), but it would be neat to run it through something that transpiled it to React friendly code, which wouldn't bee too hard to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 08:02
|
|
