5 ms·

> front-end development > appendices If there are any sane people left, please ignore these boilerplate kits. If you need React or a similar lib, and you know

by wanda 11y ago

> front-end development > appendices If there are any sane people left, please ignore these boilerplate kits. If you need React or a similar lib, and you know how to use it, you should probably research the libs available and pick your own front-end toolkit. There are no standards (that you can rely upon). If you don't need this crap to show that your user is logged in, or if you don't know how React (and its baggage) even works, steer clear. You'll lose your time and sanity pursuing a transient, subpar solution to a problem you may not ever have. I implore everybody justifiably interested in React to try Mithril or Cycle.js first. Both represent saner approaches.

r-cid 11y ago
I can agree with you about steering clear of such a large boilerplate setup-- especially if you don't understand everything baked in. But can you explain why you would choose Mithril of Cycle.js over React? I've been building production apps with React for about a year but at a glance I can't really see any clear advantages in Mithril or Cycle.js
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  I can speak to Cycle, at least. The big deal for Cycle is that it is reactive programming using RxJS. RxJS provides a standardized (and cross-language [1]) "standard language" of working with reactive flows. It's very nice to have a reusable "toolbox" like RxJS and knowing that the skills you put into using it transfer to just about any other language you might want to use (and vice versa, I first used RX in C#). While there are RxJS integrations into React, the benefit to Cycle is that in presuming (and building explicitly on top of) RxJS it ends up being a relatively small "glue library" and a set of documented conventions for RX observables ("event streams"), more than a complicated chunk of "framework code". [1] http://reactivex.io http://reactivex.io
  - r-cid 11y ago
    Interesting. I'm a fan of reactive programming and I've built projects using react+bacon.js and found that they worked well together. I'll have to give cycle a try on a hobby project sometime. Unfortunately I'm shoe horned into react for my client work. The majority of my projects are handed off to the client to maintain and React is sort of a selling point (because.. you know facebook uses it and all). I'm afraid I can't realistically sell Cycle.js at this point.
    - WorldMaker 11y ago
      Yeah, I definitely understand the salesmanship "follow the other lemmings" aspect of things. If it helps, I've found that I can sell "This project should use RX for all of these good reasons and its a growing industry standard supported by companies like Microsoft and Netflix..." and if I need to mention Cycle at all directly, pointing out Cycle is just the handy "glue" to bind RxJS to a Virtual DOM similar to Facebook's React...
sehr 11y ago
Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or announce that you expect to get downvoted. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by wanda 11y ago

r-cid 11y ago

I can agree with you about steering clear of such a large boilerplate setup-- especially if you don't understand everything baked in. But can you explain why you would choose Mithril of Cycle.js over React? I've been building production apps with React for about a year but at a glance I can't really see any clear advantages in Mithril or Cycle.js

WorldMaker 11y ago
I can speak to Cycle, at least. The big deal for Cycle is that it is reactive programming using RxJS. RxJS provides a standardized (and cross-language [1]) "standard language" of working with reactive flows. It's very nice to have a reusable "toolbox" like RxJS and knowing that the skills you put into using it transfer to just about any other language you might want to use (and vice versa, I first used RX in C#). While there are RxJS integrations into React, the benefit to Cycle is that in presuming (and building explicitly on top of) RxJS it ends up being a relatively small "glue library" and a set of documented conventions for RX observables ("event streams"), more than a complicated chunk of "framework code". [1] http://reactivex.io http://reactivex.io
- r-cid 11y ago
  Interesting. I'm a fan of reactive programming and I've built projects using react+bacon.js and found that they worked well together. I'll have to give cycle a try on a hobby project sometime. Unfortunately I'm shoe horned into react for my client work. The majority of my projects are handed off to the client to maintain and React is sort of a selling point (because.. you know facebook uses it and all). I'm afraid I can't realistically sell Cycle.js at this point.
  - WorldMaker 11y ago
    Yeah, I definitely understand the salesmanship "follow the other lemmings" aspect of things. If it helps, I've found that I can sell "This project should use RX for all of these good reasons and its a growing industry standard supported by companies like Microsoft and Netflix..." and if I need to mention Cycle at all directly, pointing out Cycle is just the handy "glue" to bind RxJS to a Virtual DOM similar to Facebook's React...

sehr 11y ago

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or announce that you expect to get downvoted. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html