3 ms·
Ah, thanks for explaining that ! I thought the Ember team had started an entirely new project instead of reusing something that already existed. If they extract
by conradk 10y ago
Ah, thanks for explaining that ! I thought the Ember team had started an entirely new project instead of reusing something that already existed. If they extracted it, that makes much more sense to me now.
- always_good 10y agoI don't understand these sorts of comments. "Heh, good thing you read and summarized TFA because I didn't and instead jumped to conclusions." I see it on HN all the time, like a celebration for not having to read the submission. "Phew, that was a close one!" There are maybe 8 sentences of copy on that landing page. One of them is: > Because Glimmer powers the components in Ember, > there’s a battle-tested, full-stack framework > waiting for you—if you need it.
- conradk 10y agoThat's not what I meant to say at all. Here, I saw what looked like a new project. You say I should have understood right away because Glimmer is said to power Ember's components. But the Ember team could very well have built an entirely new engine for its components. I thought Ember used to use Handlebars (didn't it?) and had just recently built a new engine (aka Glimmer) instead of adapting an existing one (React, Vue, etc). But that sounded odd, hence my question. If you see these sorts of things all the time, there may be a reason: communication is hard and we all interpret things a bit differently (depending on our experience, our mindset, our native language, etc).
- stickfigure 10y agoIt's not the parent's fault. I read that landing page, clicked around a bit, and still had no idea what I was looking at. The top comment thread here on HN is about how confusing the page is. It really would be much clearer if they deleted all the text on the landing page and added This is the view layer extracted from Ember as a standalone library.