5 ms·

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

by 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choose this paid library instead of a free alternative: it's made with TypeScript, and that means no fiddling with outdated type definitions (fixing and submitting updated types to DefinitelyTyped, talking the owner of the library to adopt types, etc) and no using a library without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.

5 ms·

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

by leshow 7y ago

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choose this paid library instead of a free alternative: it's made with TypeScript, and that means no fiddling with outdated type definitions (fixing and submitting updated types to DefinitelyTyped, talking the owner of the library to adopt types, etc) and no using a library without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.