5 ms·

Looks like React animation libraries are popular right now. Here's the one that I've been working on recently: https://github.com/ismailman/react-spho https://

Looks like React animation libraries are popular right now. Here's the one that I've been working on recently: https://github.com/ismailman/react-spho https://github.com/ismailman/react-spho My philosophy is different though that I want to make it absolutely dead simple to make UIs animate organically vs being a feature-filled animation library. I think React-SPHO is actually the easiest to use animation library for React available as most things you want to do "just work" and anybody reading the code using the library knows exactly what's going on without having to read any documentation so ramp-up for basic use cases is effectively instant.

slig 7y ago
Will have a closer look later today. It's always a pleasure to find useful libs written in TS, thank you!
- bluebill1049 7y ago
  Thank you too :) feedback welcome
ha99ja 7y ago
Why would anyone pay for your non-free software when there are hundreds of great alternatives?
- OmarIsmail 7y ago
  Gonna write more on this but short answer is that developers time isn't free. If using React SPHO saves literally one hour in all the time you're using it (could be years) vs these other alternatives then you're already ahead. And I tried to design it so that it saves you and your team a lot more than an hour.
- prezjordan 7y ago
  Because OP has an incentive to continue supporting his library
- mrmonkeyman 7y ago
  I'm sick and tired of amateur bullshit quickly thrown on GitHub and being promoted like a "great alternative". Support is zero, incentive is zero. Why free? I want to pay for developer time because I actually want to work with professional developers, not kiddies. The free as in beer software bullshit ideology is destroying this profession.
- jwr 7y ago
  I would pay if I found the library better than the free alternatives. Specifically, I would pay if the library allowed me to reach my goals faster: simple, well-designed, not doing too many things and well documented and maintained are the key factors. One reason for paying is to ensure that the library is maintained: too many people out there assume that labor is free. I would not pay for anything that isn't open source, though, because I do not want to become fully dependent on something that might disappear.
leshow 7y ago
Your library claims to be 'dual license' but your license file is empty. Just my personal opinion, but it's unlikely anyone will pay for this given the amount of free alternatives, and it's unlikely anyone will use it in OSS projects because there is a paid tier.
- OmarIsmail 7y ago
  Licensing information is now available.
- slig 7y ago
  One reason why I might choose this paid library instead of a free alternative: it's made with TypeScript, and that means no fiddling with outdated type definitions (fixing and submitting updated types to DefinitelyTyped, talking the owner of the library to adopt types, etc) and no using a library without typings. That alone is worth at least a hour of my time.
  - baddox 7y ago
    I checked the first two React animation libraries I could think of, and they’re both written in TypeScript and MIT-licensed: https://github.com/react-spring/react-spring https://github.com/react-spring/react-spring https://github.com/Popmotion/popmotion/tree/master/packages/react-pose https://github.com/Popmotion/popmotion/tree/master/packages/...
    - OmarIsmail 7y ago
      Those are both very good libraries and I did a lot of research on them before deciding to write SPHO. I'm planning to write an article on my findings but I can pretty much guarantee you that SPHO will save you many hours over those libraries. The funny thing is that even doing a proper investigation of the different libraries will easily take you over an hour.
  - leshow 7y ago
    The fact is the OSS alternatives do have high quality type defs so there's no trade off to be had here. Like I said before, it's just my opinion, but I'd take a library with thousands of stars and a group of people maintaining it over something unknown and paid any day. If you think it's a good idea to pay for this, more power to you.
felipellrocha 7y ago
> My philosophy is different though that I want to make it absolutely dead simple to make UIs animate organically vs being a feature-filled animation library. Is OP's library not trying to be dead simple?
- OmarIsmail 7y ago
  I think they sacrificed some simplicity for flexibility. e.g. having two different APIs (Component one and Hooks one) vs just one. That decision alone will have a very large cost initially and over time in working with the library. I think hooks are cool, but this proliferation of two APIs when using/authoring libraries is concerning to me.

slig 7y ago

Will have a closer look later today. It's always a pleasure to find useful libs written in TS, thank you!

bluebill1049 7y ago
Thank you too :) feedback welcome

ha99ja 7y ago

Why would anyone pay for your non-free software when there are hundreds of great alternatives?

OmarIsmail 7y ago
Gonna write more on this but short answer is that developers time isn't free. If using React SPHO saves literally one hour in all the time you're using it (could be years) vs these other alternatives then you're already ahead. And I tried to design it so that it saves you and your team a lot more than an hour.
prezjordan 7y ago
Because OP has an incentive to continue supporting his library
mrmonkeyman 7y ago
I'm sick and tired of amateur bullshit quickly thrown on GitHub and being promoted like a "great alternative". Support is zero, incentive is zero. Why free? I want to pay for developer time because I actually want to work with professional developers, not kiddies. The free as in beer software bullshit ideology is destroying this profession.
jwr 7y ago
I would pay if I found the library better than the free alternatives. Specifically, I would pay if the library allowed me to reach my goals faster: simple, well-designed, not doing too many things and well documented and maintained are the key factors. One reason for paying is to ensure that the library is maintained: too many people out there assume that labor is free. I would not pay for anything that isn't open source, though, because I do not want to become fully dependent on something that might disappear.

leshow 7y ago

Your library claims to be 'dual license' but your license file is empty. Just my personal opinion, but it's unlikely anyone will pay for this given the amount of free alternatives, and it's unlikely anyone will use it in OSS projects because there is a paid tier.

OmarIsmail 7y ago
Licensing information is now available.
slig 7y ago
One reason why I might choose this paid library instead of a free alternative: it's made with TypeScript, and that means no fiddling with outdated type definitions (fixing and submitting updated types to DefinitelyTyped, talking the owner of the library to adopt types, etc) and no using a library without typings. That alone is worth at least a hour of my time.
- baddox 7y ago
  I checked the first two React animation libraries I could think of, and they’re both written in TypeScript and MIT-licensed: https://github.com/react-spring/react-spring https://github.com/react-spring/react-spring https://github.com/Popmotion/popmotion/tree/master/packages/react-pose https://github.com/Popmotion/popmotion/tree/master/packages/...
  - OmarIsmail 7y ago
    Those are both very good libraries and I did a lot of research on them before deciding to write SPHO. I'm planning to write an article on my findings but I can pretty much guarantee you that SPHO will save you many hours over those libraries. The funny thing is that even doing a proper investigation of the different libraries will easily take you over an hour.
- leshow 7y ago
  The fact is the OSS alternatives do have high quality type defs so there's no trade off to be had here. Like I said before, it's just my opinion, but I'd take a library with thousands of stars and a group of people maintaining it over something unknown and paid any day. If you think it's a good idea to pay for this, more power to you.

felipellrocha 7y ago

> My philosophy is different though that I want to make it absolutely dead simple to make UIs animate organically vs being a feature-filled animation library. Is OP's library not trying to be dead simple?

OmarIsmail 7y ago
I think they sacrificed some simplicity for flexibility. e.g. having two different APIs (Component one and Hooks one) vs just one. That decision alone will have a very large cost initially and over time in working with the library. I think hooks are cool, but this proliferation of two APIs when using/authoring libraries is concerning to me.