4 ms·

Polymer is one of the worst offenders when it comes to treating backwards compat seriously, worse than Angular even. We're testing frameworks on projects intern

Polymer is one of the worst offenders when it comes to treating backwards compat seriously, worse than Angular even. We're testing frameworks on projects internally to get an idea, Polymer is going through the third full rewrite. That also speaks volumes about its approach, it just doesn't know what it wants. It's again based on weak, string-typed templates and is designed imperatively. After React, there's no time for this stuff anymore.

KirinDave 9y ago
I feel like this is quite overstated as a problem, since nothing really compels you to update. Polymer is a small enough library that it's easy to contribute to and the components are so featherweight you hardly need someone to make 30 new versions. If you're only Polymer1, the only motivation to go to Polymer2 is performance. I suspect the same thing will be the case for Polymer3. Why do you need to update?
- mlsarecmg 9y ago
  This is a featherweight component: const A = () => <div>hi</div> const B = () => <A /> Polymer is everything but light, it is a huge abstraction. It ships a template engine parsing arbitrary syntax, emulates an arbitrary javascript accent, relies on dependency injection (in the above example it couldn't even refer to component A for instance). Being stuck with an old version that becomes unable to participate in its own eco system is no joke. It isn't just about performance. Imagine the implications for the community that builds parts, components and tools. Even if you deal with self-contained web-components, you'll still fetch two full versions of Polymer just to have them side by side. How insane is that? And if they finally find a good balance, perhaps version 4 or 5, it has to compete against React eventually. And i doubt it'll look any less poor than it does right now.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Using js to write a component framework is quite more heavyweight compared to using a browser supported system. In terms of weight, Polymer is less so because it uses less js code (the most expensive bytes for all parties), has fewer dependencies, and doesn't try and render server side. As for ok'd versions: why is it impossible for a company or individual that needs it to maintain it themselves? Anyone using React or Angular also needs to do this. React seems, to me, to be too big to fail. And the existence of Redux should show: it is far from perfect.

KirinDave 9y ago

I feel like this is quite overstated as a problem, since nothing really compels you to update. Polymer is a small enough library that it's easy to contribute to and the components are so featherweight you hardly need someone to make 30 new versions. If you're only Polymer1, the only motivation to go to Polymer2 is performance. I suspect the same thing will be the case for Polymer3. Why do you need to update?

mlsarecmg 9y ago
This is a featherweight component: const A = () => <div>hi</div> const B = () => <A /> Polymer is everything but light, it is a huge abstraction. It ships a template engine parsing arbitrary syntax, emulates an arbitrary javascript accent, relies on dependency injection (in the above example it couldn't even refer to component A for instance). Being stuck with an old version that becomes unable to participate in its own eco system is no joke. It isn't just about performance. Imagine the implications for the community that builds parts, components and tools. Even if you deal with self-contained web-components, you'll still fetch two full versions of Polymer just to have them side by side. How insane is that? And if they finally find a good balance, perhaps version 4 or 5, it has to compete against React eventually. And i doubt it'll look any less poor than it does right now.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Using js to write a component framework is quite more heavyweight compared to using a browser supported system. In terms of weight, Polymer is less so because it uses less js code (the most expensive bytes for all parties), has fewer dependencies, and doesn't try and render server side. As for ok'd versions: why is it impossible for a company or individual that needs it to maintain it themselves? Anyone using React or Angular also needs to do this. React seems, to me, to be too big to fail. And the existence of Redux should show: it is far from perfect.