|
LiveReload is also pretty great for CSS changes (although I don't know if Webpack would interact the same way) because it just has to reload the stylesheet and not refresh the page. edit: For posterity you can do the concatenating and live reloading with any build system at this point (Grunt, Gulp, Webpack, Browserify, JSPM, Broccoli *shudders*), Webpack just does a pretty great job of it all IMO.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
what's the difference between brunch.io and webpack and browserify
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Never heard of Brunch, I'm sure it's stupid. Difference between Webpack and Browersify, at this point honestly it's probably just that Webpack is designed around letting you require all dependencies in your code instead of just JS dependencies, while Browserify is probably just about the concatenating and plugins part. Also Browserify lets you include some node.js libraries as part of your front-end code I believe, which Webpack may not by default. At some point it's just about picking one because you'll probably be dissatisfied with whichever one you pick in some respect, and they all do the same basic important things you need. But choose Webpack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
brunch looks p cool ngl
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:what's the difference between brunch.io and webpack and browserify They come from different places. Browserify was never really intended as a tool to actually bundle your normal web assets. As it's name implies, it's function was to wrap around Node.js libraries and make them available in the browser, ie, to 'browserify' the library. It is a side effect this also allows bundling together the rest of your JS code. It's been around for awhile now, so has a lot of tooling built around it, and is built around allowing plugins, so it can be very flexible. Webpack is newer, and specifically designed for packaging web assets. However, it attempts to be a somewhat all-in-one solution, and using it feels like Grunt (setting up a giant config file). It is probably where the future is for bundling assets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:
My webpack config for hot reloading a React app is 15 lines. Is that giant these days? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:My webpack config for hot reloading a React app is 15 lines. Is that giant these days? More than 1 line of Grunt is too many.  I've not had the chance to use Webpack yet, but I don't like Grunt so I'm putting it off. I've heard good things, aside from the config style
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:More than 1 line of Grunt is too many. I tried Grunt once. It was not a good experience. Webpack config is pretty simple for basic stuff, and it's just javascript.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Odette posted:Is node.js really that bad? Nah, people just hate on JS because they're babies. Lots of the frameworks built on node are young but the MEAN stack is pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Nah, people just hate on JS because they're babies. Lots of the frameworks built on node are young but the MEAN stack is pretty solid. I wish people would stop trying to force things like relational user<>content tables into something like mongodb though. It has its place, but arguably doing things like running a forum with category, posts, and users should not be done totally into mongo (at least two exist)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Choosing the technologies you're using based on whether the first letters can be made into a word is really dumb, hth. Chances are high that anyone using MEAN has made completely the wrong decision for at least one of the components, and since everything's relatively new tech you don't even have the advantage of heaps of people treading the same road in the past to help you work through issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Choosing the technologies you're using based on whether the first letters can be made into a word is really dumb, hth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
MongoDB seems very popular and well-used for something that gets so much hate on reddit and a comedy site subforum... It seems pretty neat to me. Sure, I wouldn't use it for everything but I can see it could have a lot of uses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:MongoDB seems very popular and well-used for something that gets so much hate on reddit and a comedy site subforum... NoSQL databases have a very specific use case where it is actually beneficial. However, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon of NoSQL replacing relational databases, which doesn't make any actual sense, but people are trying anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:NoSQL databases have a very specific use case where it is actually beneficial. However, a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon of NoSQL replacing relational databases, which doesn't make any actual sense, but people are trying anyways. Which is? (I'm genuinely asking.) Huzanko fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Whichs is? I store documents in my mongo/rethink. Occasionally I aggregate/run analytics on them. I don't know the schema of the documents at insertion time and they can change without warning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
As an aside, I really enjoy working with API driven architecture. Does anyone see anything wrong with setting up a Rails JSON API on one server and then throwing the front-end code in an S3 bucket and then configuring CORS on the Rails server to make it all work? I'm interested in hearing about the issue that might surround that architecture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:I store documents in my mongo/rethink. Occasionally I aggregate/run analytics on them. I don't know the schema of the documents at insertion time and they can change without warning. Yeah, that's one of the ways the company I work for used Mongo for a client project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Which is? Well, think of NoSQL databases as giant, persisted hashtables. Usually does well for things that don't need to be broken up, or have differing structures, or will only ever have one way of accessing (via the hash key). But if you ever want to start combining objects (header data + rows), you want a relational database.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:As an aside, I really enjoy working with API driven architecture. what the gently caress does this mean
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:what the gently caress does this mean I enjoy writing SPAs that interact with the server via a JSON API.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
i have no idea what a spa is
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:i have no idea what a spa is Single page application, like angular, ember, etc. Basically he's making a website with a JavaScript framework in 2015 in other terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
so your website won't have any seo. gj
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:so your website won't have any seo. gj -suspicious dish
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:so your website won't have any seo. gj this is horribly wrong, wtf? google crawlers can most definitely run js, angular, and cache them like you'd render a server side view for them
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
im pretty sure a large part of the world would never leave their bedroom if it was possible to kiss their own butt
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:so your website won't have any seo. gj Isomorphic JS (using the same JS on the client and server) is a Thing. Almost. Soon. We've got it working. Big perf win, dev win, SEO win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Isomorphic JS (using the same JS on the client and server) is a Thing. Almost. Soon. They renamed it "Universal JS", btw. (Because it's JS land, so things must change every month or else)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
One of these things is untrue (guess which?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Which is? Free-form content. One of the best examples (regardless of if you think it's good) is Adobe CQ. It runs on a Java Content Repository JSR-283 is the current implementation off the top of my head (I may be wrong). While the content is structured by type (String, Integer, Date...), it's not bound by a DB structure and is stored in a nodal way so it is very conducive (and CQ has this built in) to simply exporting objects straight to JSON or XML or even HTML.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:literally every application must be search engine crawlable, even internal ones or ones that don't display search engine-relevant content, and there is no way to provide any content to a search engine in a single-page application yes, all of these things are true
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:yes, all of these things are true Aside from the fact that the Google crawler can execute Javascript so it can read SPAs just fine. http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascript-heres-learned-220157
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
google is not the only search engine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
And Google's JS execution is somewhat limited. It doesn't do XHR, or timeouts, both of which are pretty common in building SPAs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:And Google's JS execution is somewhat limited. It doesn't do XHR, or timeouts, both of which are pretty common in building SPAs. I definitely had webpages indexed on google with content in the description only visible by executing a setTimeout(eval($.ajax())) blob, this was in late 2013.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Regardless of the specifics, having a SPA does not mean you don't or can't do SEO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Yeah Ember's whole schtick was a URL-based router that makes webapps behave like normal web pages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
it makes it a whole lot harder. yes, i know about the crazy #! thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 18:33
|
|