4 ms·

I think angular bootstrap handles your use case nicely. I use it for a prod site that gets a lot of traffic. http://angular-ui.github.io/bootstrap/ http://angu

by teen 11y ago

I think angular bootstrap handles your use case nicely. I use it for a prod site that gets a lot of traffic. http://angular-ui.github.io/bootstrap/ http://angular-ui.github.io/bootstrap/

k__ 11y ago
Same goes for react-bootstrap http://react-bootstrap.github.io/ http://react-bootstrap.github.io/
- laichzeit0 11y ago
  I tried react-bootstrap and it was great. Except when you get to the point where one of those components lacks a feature you need, like say searching on the table component (I'd just like to specify that as a prop value), or there is a component you need but is missing. Now you either have to build your own, or go google for "react bootstrap XYZ component" and hope it does what you need to. Do we really need a R/A/E/*-bootstrap everytime a new framework comes out or can we build something more generic like this (R/A/E)-[general_component_library]-(Bootstrap/Material Design/Current Button Style Trend)?
  - tracker1 11y ago
    And if a feature isn't built into a QT component, you don't have to compose your own? If you're using MaterialUI, or React-Bootstrap, you should be able to compose what you want out of more primitive components... yes, there's work there, and it isn't magic... if you want something more polished, nobody is stopping you, or anyone else from writing/creating it or paying someone to do it for you.
    - marknutter 11y ago
      The issue is that instead of the web community as a whole working to create one awesome table widget we are fragmented across X frameworks creating X table widgets that all do the exact same thing.
      - tracker1 11y ago
        I'm trying really hard not to make a snarky comment here... the fact is there is, always has been, and always will be a lot of fragmentation with any web technology. Just like there's fragmentation with desktop apps... QT, wx, GTK and that's just a handful for Linux alone. That doesn't include all the Windows and OSX UI packages over the years... The web is far more flexible and diverse in practice, and also more open, so you simple see more of the options. MaterialUI, MaterializeCSS and Bootstrap are all decent starting points... depending on what you want to do. If what you want is a nice table widget, nobody is stopping you from making one... become part of the web community you're complaining about... If you aren't part of the solution, what are you? In this case you're supposed to be a programmer, with an itch to scratch... scratch, and share.
        marknutter 11y ago
        So if my itch is to create a shareable component that interops with any framework that wasn't really possible until web components came around. And of course I'm all for many different takes on the same problem. The issue I have is that there's no way for any one take to rise to the top for a given component because it usually only works with one framework out of the box. After seeing table components be created for jquery, then ember, then angular, then react, with no significant improvement on each other other than working with their particular framework, I definitely long for a universal way of authoring components so we can cut down on the churn and focus on actually building our apps.
        tracker1 11y ago
        So, you can take a QT table component and use it in a GTK app without a lot of extra overhead? I don't see how this is really all that different from components in any language/environment/platform... yes, there is fragmentation.. and yes, you can mash things together, doesn't mean you should, but you can. That said, it's an itch that has been scratched, if it hasn't been scratched for your tool of choice, dig into that... the fact is that more people are working towards enhancement from phone to desktop, and being able to work with similar controls at different sizes/rendering... table controls don't really fit outside the desktop model, which is probably why there aren't more options for react, and probably more for angular than react at that.

by teen 11y ago

I think angular bootstrap handles your use case nicely. I use it for a prod site that gets a lot of traffic. http://angular-ui.github.io/bootstrap/ http://angular-ui.github.io/bootstrap/

k__ 11y ago

Same goes for react-bootstrap http://react-bootstrap.github.io/ http://react-bootstrap.github.io/

laichzeit0 11y ago
I tried react-bootstrap and it was great. Except when you get to the point where one of those components lacks a feature you need, like say searching on the table component (I'd just like to specify that as a prop value), or there is a component you need but is missing. Now you either have to build your own, or go google for "react bootstrap XYZ component" and hope it does what you need to. Do we really need a R/A/E/*-bootstrap everytime a new framework comes out or can we build something more generic like this (R/A/E)-[general_component_library]-(Bootstrap/Material Design/Current Button Style Trend)?
- tracker1 11y ago
  And if a feature isn't built into a QT component, you don't have to compose your own? If you're using MaterialUI, or React-Bootstrap, you should be able to compose what you want out of more primitive components... yes, there's work there, and it isn't magic... if you want something more polished, nobody is stopping you, or anyone else from writing/creating it or paying someone to do it for you.
  - marknutter 11y ago
    The issue is that instead of the web community as a whole working to create one awesome table widget we are fragmented across X frameworks creating X table widgets that all do the exact same thing.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      I'm trying really hard not to make a snarky comment here... the fact is there is, always has been, and always will be a lot of fragmentation with any web technology. Just like there's fragmentation with desktop apps... QT, wx, GTK and that's just a handful for Linux alone. That doesn't include all the Windows and OSX UI packages over the years... The web is far more flexible and diverse in practice, and also more open, so you simple see more of the options. MaterialUI, MaterializeCSS and Bootstrap are all decent starting points... depending on what you want to do. If what you want is a nice table widget, nobody is stopping you from making one... become part of the web community you're complaining about... If you aren't part of the solution, what are you? In this case you're supposed to be a programmer, with an itch to scratch... scratch, and share.
      - marknutter 11y ago
        So if my itch is to create a shareable component that interops with any framework that wasn't really possible until web components came around. And of course I'm all for many different takes on the same problem. The issue I have is that there's no way for any one take to rise to the top for a given component because it usually only works with one framework out of the box. After seeing table components be created for jquery, then ember, then angular, then react, with no significant improvement on each other other than working with their particular framework, I definitely long for a universal way of authoring components so we can cut down on the churn and focus on actually building our apps.
        tracker1 11y ago
        So, you can take a QT table component and use it in a GTK app without a lot of extra overhead? I don't see how this is really all that different from components in any language/environment/platform... yes, there is fragmentation.. and yes, you can mash things together, doesn't mean you should, but you can. That said, it's an itch that has been scratched, if it hasn't been scratched for your tool of choice, dig into that... the fact is that more people are working towards enhancement from phone to desktop, and being able to work with similar controls at different sizes/rendering... table controls don't really fit outside the desktop model, which is probably why there aren't more options for react, and probably more for angular than react at that.