4 ms·

And we can compare them on LibHunt by CodeQuality, Popularity & Dev Activity React VS Angular https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/angular-js https://js.lib

And we can compare them on LibHunt by CodeQuality, Popularity & Dev Activity React VS Angular https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/angular-js https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/angular-js React VS Aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/aurelia Angular VS Aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/angular-js/vs/aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/angular-js/vs/aurelia BONUS Vue.js VS React https://js.libhunt.com/project/vue/vs/react https://js.libhunt.com/project/vue/vs/react It seems that Aurelia beats them all by Code Quality...

eropple 10y ago
If you're going to flog your project, you should at least disclaim it as yours; it's only polite. And you should actually define what "code quality" is, which in this case is apparently a really handwavy claim to cyclomatic complexity and similar metrics (which, while not entirely nonsense, don't mean much, especially at library-code levels when dealing with performance-critical code and the like).
acemarke 10y ago
Rather depends on how they're measuring "code quality". A very brief search didn't turn up any specific description of their metric. If it's simply, say, "number of issues", or even something like "average age of open issues", then an actively used lib like Angular or React is likely to have "less quality" simply because more people have been using it and filing issues over time.
- tribby 10y ago
  lumnify describes the criteria[1] but is incredibly vague about it. unless/until they give detailed reports on each project explaining how they arrived at their conclusions I think it's fair to treat these grades as pulled out of thin air. and even then it would be of very little/probably still no value. every project is different and you need to evaluate your tooling based on the situation. 1. https://lumnify.com/grades/ https://lumnify.com/grades/
  - stanislavb 10y ago
    They are not pulled out of thin air. You should contact them, and they will come with an answer. The algorithms have been tuned based on feedback from a number of Start Ups in Sydney.
    - tribby 10y ago
      they can open-source their methods/algorithms for public review if they want anyone to take their scores seriously.
- stanislavb 10y ago
  Hey, thanks for the interest. It's much more complex. There's a link at the bottom of the pages pointing to a basic explanation - https://lumnify.com/grades/ https://lumnify.com/grades/ . I hope that helps.
pluma 10y ago
Aurelia beats them all by the aggregated, somewhat obscure "Code Quality" metric but is beaten by all of them in every other way. Except Ember, of course: https://js.libhunt.com/project/ember-js/vs/aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/ember-js/vs/aurelia No matter how accurate the metric is, a framework/library's value lies not in how perfect its code is. Nobody actually uses Aurelia (yes, that's hyperbole but even Ember beats Aurelia in every popularity metric except Downloads). You can't simply define Aurelia into relevance, even if LibHunt backs it up. Also, who even uses LibHunt?

eropple 10y ago

If you're going to flog your project, you should at least disclaim it as yours; it's only polite. And you should actually define what "code quality" is, which in this case is apparently a really handwavy claim to cyclomatic complexity and similar metrics (which, while not entirely nonsense, don't mean much, especially at library-code levels when dealing with performance-critical code and the like).

acemarke 10y ago

Rather depends on how they're measuring "code quality". A very brief search didn't turn up any specific description of their metric. If it's simply, say, "number of issues", or even something like "average age of open issues", then an actively used lib like Angular or React is likely to have "less quality" simply because more people have been using it and filing issues over time.

tribby 10y ago
lumnify describes the criteria[1] but is incredibly vague about it. unless/until they give detailed reports on each project explaining how they arrived at their conclusions I think it's fair to treat these grades as pulled out of thin air. and even then it would be of very little/probably still no value. every project is different and you need to evaluate your tooling based on the situation. 1. https://lumnify.com/grades/ https://lumnify.com/grades/
- stanislavb 10y ago
  They are not pulled out of thin air. You should contact them, and they will come with an answer. The algorithms have been tuned based on feedback from a number of Start Ups in Sydney.
  - tribby 10y ago
    they can open-source their methods/algorithms for public review if they want anyone to take their scores seriously.
stanislavb 10y ago
Hey, thanks for the interest. It's much more complex. There's a link at the bottom of the pages pointing to a basic explanation - https://lumnify.com/grades/ https://lumnify.com/grades/ . I hope that helps.

pluma 10y ago

Aurelia beats them all by the aggregated, somewhat obscure "Code Quality" metric but is beaten by all of them in every other way. Except Ember, of course: https://js.libhunt.com/project/ember-js/vs/aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/ember-js/vs/aurelia No matter how accurate the metric is, a framework/library's value lies not in how perfect its code is. Nobody actually uses Aurelia (yes, that's hyperbole but even Ember beats Aurelia in every popularity metric except Downloads). You can't simply define Aurelia into relevance, even if LibHunt backs it up. Also, who even uses LibHunt?