7 ms·

Ask HN: Why did famous.js fail?

• jheriko 10y ago
  It's a bit of a baseless gimmick when it comes to 3D... gives you nothing much over a good understanding of CSS and geometry... which is probably good, but what did it give us for 2D?
• flukus 10y ago
  It seems as though it's entirely code driven. We've largely decided that declarative langues (html, xaml) are better for building user interfaces. This looks more like swing for the web.
  • Kinnard 10y ago
    Why are declarative languages better for UI?
    • yrezgui 10y ago
      They're easier to read and code. Check out XAML for C#, it's dead simple. But one of their main problem is they advertised for too long (I remember waiting for ages) and we didn't get the 60 fps. It wasn't as fast as announced and painful to integrate.
      • flukus 10y ago
        I'd say check out knockoutjs instead, way simpler than xaml.
    • flukus 10y ago
      Because it provides I nice separation between the "static" parts of a program, the UI, and the dynamic parts, the data. The first demo of this on the other hand, has html embedded in javascript strings. A program of any complexity written like this would quickly turn into a big ball of mud.
      • Kinnard 10y ago
        I'm somewhat skeptical of this separation of concerns
        • flukus 10y ago
          I'd encourage you to try it out: http://jsfiddle.net/rniemeyer/LkqTU/ http://jsfiddle.net/rniemeyer/LkqTU/
      • iamleppert 10y ago
        It's possible to turn any codebase into a big ball of mud. Declarative languages are just a tool, like object oriented languages are. And arguably, if you choose a language based upon its ability to help you define what is "dynamic" vs. "static" you've made some mistakes.
        • Kinnard 10y ago
          >"And arguably, if you choose a language based upon its ability to help you define what is "dynamic" vs. "static" you've made some mistakes." Please elaborate.
  • carterehsmith 10y ago
    >> We've largely decided that declarative langues (html, xaml) are better for building user interfaces. On the other hand, many of us decided the exact opposite. Check the history ?. Declarative UIs has been around for, what 30-40 years, and they don't seem to be actually gaining any share. They invariably look super-useful and productive when you build "my first app". Typically it is a "ToDo list". Then you start using it to build something larger and then you swear a lot, and eventually realize that the whole premise is flawed, and then you decide never to use declarative UIs again, ever. lol.
    • Kinnard 10y ago
      Haha, that sounds like me. Except I more so swear a lot after developing too many apps using technology that was meant for adding hyperlinking to text documents . . .
    • Kinnard 10y ago
      Could you recommend some alternative UIs?
      • carterehsmith 10y ago
        Any component-based UI toolkit will fit the bill. There are many of them, as this is kind of classic approach, I would recommend React. 10 years ago, it was Sencha, DOJO, etc. As for native, every OS provides component-based UI toolkit.
    • flukus 10y ago
      "Check the history ?. Declarative UIs has been around for, what 30-40 years, and they don't seem to be actually gaining any share." Really? Because HTML seems to be by far the most popular environment these days. many are even trying to push it to the desktop. "Then you start using it to build something larger and then you swear a lot, and eventually realize that the whole premise is flawed, and then you decide never to use declarative UIs again, ever. lol." What other abstractions are you using? If it was manipulating things based in jQuery selectors then I'd agree. But I find a combination with an MVVM framework (like knockout) it scales incredibly well.
• cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  My personal opinion: They failed because they launched big and didn't let people use it. I remember first signing up for beta, waiting, waiting, and waiting, and never getting an invite. I even tweeted at them but never got a response. They seemed to be only focused on creating buzz in silicon valley without actually letting people use their platform, maybe they thought that was marketing. But what good is marketing when no one can use the product? Later on they eventually opened up but it was too late. No developer likes to build on a platform that's going down.
• schneidmaster 10y ago
  I tried to get into it a couple of times and I could never understand it. I don't think I'm particularly slow at picking up new stuff in general, for me the learning curve was just massive and I wasn't ever quite sure why it was worth the investment. Maybe if I was trying to do browser game dev or something but I've never needed a magic periodic table[1] in my everyday development life. [1]: http://disrupt.famo.us/periodic402/ http://disrupt.famo.us/periodic402/
• jasoncchild 10y ago
  they were solving a problem that people were not having in large enough numbers (yet). yes, the DOM sucks and is slow no, neat 3d client effects are not what most people need now
• Hamcha 10y ago
  Didn't they also change scope entirely? When I signed in (and never got invited) it was more like a visualization library or something to do cool 3d stuff.. and then moved to UIs and mobile apps and whatnot when it came out. Funny enough, the same exact thing happened with Outracks' "fuse", started as a tool (called Realtime Studio) for realtime GPU-driven, optionally interactive content like music visualization (had a slick demo for that) and demo-production (Outracks is also a demogroup) and then switched to a mobile UI tool all of the sudden. (at which point I started completely ignoring because it's completely not what I wanted)