3 ms·

I refuse to use it out of principle that they have intertwined it with observable. All the modern docs for d3 assume you are using observable. So unless you are

I refuse to use it out of principle that they have intertwined it with observable. All the modern docs for d3 assume you are using observable. So unless you are relying entirely on AI it’s now even harder to grok the documentation. Not sure why this is so contentious. You can search online how many others this impacted as well. All of the modern examples for d3 were rebaked into the observable notebook pattern and it seriously obfuscated how to use d3 itself.

dleeftink 2y ago
There's Plot, which is as standalone as anything[0]. That said, I still find D3 unparalleled in depth and scope. [0]: https://github.com/observablehq/plot https://github.com/observablehq/plot
- josephg 2y ago
  I used Plot for an academic paper I wrote recently. It was the only charting library that I found that let me generate the charts I wanted to draw - which in my case was a grouped bar chart with a logarithmic scale. Ie: https://github.com/josephg/egwalker-paper/blob/master/diagrams/timings.svg https://github.com/josephg/egwalker-paper/blob/master/diagra... I didn't try echarts though. I might have to give it a go if its good.
  - shiandow 2y ago
    I reckon you can get something quite similar with matplotlib without too much trouble, though that strongly depends on how comfortable or familiar you are with it.
jwilber 2y ago
This is a very bizarre take. If you want to just blindly copy and paste d3 code, you may have issues with the docs being hosted on observable. But absolutely zero part of the d3 api (or core design patterns of use) have anything to do with observable. It’s like saying, “I refuse to use PyTorch because their docs are built with mkdocs.” Moreover, even if the coupling were limiting (which, again, it is not), it’s odd to attack observable since everything they put out is fully open-source. It’s not like they’re hiding docs behind a paywall, they’re actively contributing to the viz ecosystem through basically everything they release (eg Observable Plot, Observable framework). As far as echarts goes, it’s a great tool. The declarative syntax for charting always feels a bit odd, but it’s easy enough to wrap into component libraries. AFAIK it still powers many of the big BI viz tools used today (eg AWS Quicksight).
- infecto 2y ago
  Look, it’s not “bizarre” to point out that Observable has deeply shaped the modern D3 ecosystem. The issue isn’t that the D3 API has changed, it’s that a huge number of learning resources, examples, and docs have been rebaked into Observable’s reactive notebook style, which, for people not using Observable, adds a ton of indirection and mental overhead. You might not notice it if you already know D3 inside and out, but for newcomers, it’s a bit of a turnoff. It’s ok if you like it though! And no, this isn’t about “blindly copying and pasting.” It’s about people wanting to use D3 without having to learn an entirely different execution environment. That’s a reasonable boundary to set, especially when time and focus are finite. You can use as many italics as you want but I don’t think it’s a wildly bold claim and your counter example is simply silly.
  - abtinf 2y ago
    Pre-observable, I used d3 to develop a very complex visualization with real-time updates. It was difficult because d3 has a lot well-thought-out-but-complex concepts, but the docs and examples helped me fully understand how it worked, and the result turned out spectacular. A few years later, I needed to build a simple novel visualization. A major new version of d3 had come out, and all the examples and documentation got Observable-ified. Enough time had passed that I could only vaguely recall some of the original concepts, so I set out to re-learn. YMMV but, for me, it was impenetrable. With the limited time I had, I just couldn’t figure out how to untangle d3 from observable. I gave up. Very sad.
    - edoceo 2y ago
      Same story here, landed on Apache Echart (it seems, like many others)
  - jwilber 2y ago
    "You can use as many italics as you want but I don’t think it’s a wildly bold claim and your counter example is simply silly." I don't understand the relevance of any of this, but I think I've done a fair job outlining my points above. Let me give my best summary: the execution environment used by a library's (example) documentation is independent from learning the API of the library itself. I agree that newcomers to JavaScript may find plenty of confusion there, and I'm sure a decent chunk of D3's users may be new to web-programming in general, but it's not the job of D3 maintainers to account for that. I actually think our back-and-forth is a perfect example of why open-source is so painful to work on. D3 is one of the best documented libraries out there is. There are multiple books, hundreds of hours of youtube videos, and most importantly, dedicated maintainers (Mike Bostock, Philippe Riviere, etc.) who've poured hours into additional sources of documentation and are very responsive on GitHub issues. The unfortunate outcome here is that users have come to expect this sort of high-quality support and documentation (again with the italics, who does this guy think he is???). Every D3 submodule has standard api documentation, sure, but thats expected of all libraries these days. However, the additional example documentation (again, nobody got paid to make this material) for the most recent releases has been migrated from bl.ocks.org (a now defunct open-source service users didn't pay for it) to Observable Notebooks. Now, Observable is a VC-backed business, yes, but the documentation is still completely free. In this thread, you mention you don't like this, so in at least one online conversation where D3 comes up, you actively advocate against using it out of principle! (Couldn't resist!). Of course this is just my viewpoint on what has transpired, and I'm likely articulating it in a more-inflammatory-than-reality manner. But I'd prefer to have D3 documentation in the form of free, interactive Observable Notebooks rather than to have no documentation at all. Even more so if it helps out the authors of the open-source library. As a tip for those who have difficulties going from the reactive Observable model to vanilla js -> you can always just take an observable notebook and ask AI to convert it to a set of vanilla files for you. PS - Sorry for the novel, at an airport!
kowlo 2y ago
It's a shame - and I'm not sure why they did it other than to use D3.js' popularity promote Observable.
the_real_cher 2y ago
When did Observable get their hands on D3? Last time I looked at D3 a half decade or so ago I thought it was an open source lib?
- infecto 2y ago
  Past few years but I don’t have a timeline handy. I am probably ignoring important details but Mike Bostock cofounded observable maybe 4-5 years ago? So for all intents and purposes they have always been the same crew but they made a conscious decision to tightly intertwine d3 docs with observable notebooks.
- gaws 2y ago
  > When did Observable get their hands on D3? Observable and D3 were created by the same person.

dleeftink 2y ago

There's Plot, which is as standalone as anything[0]. That said, I still find D3 unparalleled in depth and scope. [0]: https://github.com/observablehq/plot https://github.com/observablehq/plot

josephg 2y ago
I used Plot for an academic paper I wrote recently. It was the only charting library that I found that let me generate the charts I wanted to draw - which in my case was a grouped bar chart with a logarithmic scale. Ie: https://github.com/josephg/egwalker-paper/blob/master/diagrams/timings.svg https://github.com/josephg/egwalker-paper/blob/master/diagra... I didn't try echarts though. I might have to give it a go if its good.
- shiandow 2y ago
  I reckon you can get something quite similar with matplotlib without too much trouble, though that strongly depends on how comfortable or familiar you are with it.

jwilber 2y ago

This is a very bizarre take. If you want to just blindly copy and paste d3 code, you may have issues with the docs being hosted on observable. But absolutely zero part of the d3 api (or core design patterns of use) have anything to do with observable. It’s like saying, “I refuse to use PyTorch because their docs are built with mkdocs.” Moreover, even if the coupling were limiting (which, again, it is not), it’s odd to attack observable since everything they put out is fully open-source. It’s not like they’re hiding docs behind a paywall, they’re actively contributing to the viz ecosystem through basically everything they release (eg Observable Plot, Observable framework). As far as echarts goes, it’s a great tool. The declarative syntax for charting always feels a bit odd, but it’s easy enough to wrap into component libraries. AFAIK it still powers many of the big BI viz tools used today (eg AWS Quicksight).

infecto 2y ago
Look, it’s not “bizarre” to point out that Observable has deeply shaped the modern D3 ecosystem. The issue isn’t that the D3 API has changed, it’s that a huge number of learning resources, examples, and docs have been rebaked into Observable’s reactive notebook style, which, for people not using Observable, adds a ton of indirection and mental overhead. You might not notice it if you already know D3 inside and out, but for newcomers, it’s a bit of a turnoff. It’s ok if you like it though! And no, this isn’t about “blindly copying and pasting.” It’s about people wanting to use D3 without having to learn an entirely different execution environment. That’s a reasonable boundary to set, especially when time and focus are finite. You can use as many italics as you want but I don’t think it’s a wildly bold claim and your counter example is simply silly.
- abtinf 2y ago
  Pre-observable, I used d3 to develop a very complex visualization with real-time updates. It was difficult because d3 has a lot well-thought-out-but-complex concepts, but the docs and examples helped me fully understand how it worked, and the result turned out spectacular. A few years later, I needed to build a simple novel visualization. A major new version of d3 had come out, and all the examples and documentation got Observable-ified. Enough time had passed that I could only vaguely recall some of the original concepts, so I set out to re-learn. YMMV but, for me, it was impenetrable. With the limited time I had, I just couldn’t figure out how to untangle d3 from observable. I gave up. Very sad.
  - edoceo 2y ago
    Same story here, landed on Apache Echart (it seems, like many others)
- jwilber 2y ago
  "You can use as many italics as you want but I don’t think it’s a wildly bold claim and your counter example is simply silly." I don't understand the relevance of any of this, but I think I've done a fair job outlining my points above. Let me give my best summary: the execution environment used by a library's (example) documentation is independent from learning the API of the library itself. I agree that newcomers to JavaScript may find plenty of confusion there, and I'm sure a decent chunk of D3's users may be new to web-programming in general, but it's not the job of D3 maintainers to account for that. I actually think our back-and-forth is a perfect example of why open-source is so painful to work on. D3 is one of the best documented libraries out there is. There are multiple books, hundreds of hours of youtube videos, and most importantly, dedicated maintainers (Mike Bostock, Philippe Riviere, etc.) who've poured hours into additional sources of documentation and are very responsive on GitHub issues. The unfortunate outcome here is that users have come to expect this sort of high-quality support and documentation (again with the italics, who does this guy think he is???). Every D3 submodule has standard api documentation, sure, but thats expected of all libraries these days. However, the additional example documentation (again, nobody got paid to make this material) for the most recent releases has been migrated from bl.ocks.org (a now defunct open-source service users didn't pay for it) to Observable Notebooks. Now, Observable is a VC-backed business, yes, but the documentation is still completely free. In this thread, you mention you don't like this, so in at least one online conversation where D3 comes up, you actively advocate against using it out of principle! (Couldn't resist!). Of course this is just my viewpoint on what has transpired, and I'm likely articulating it in a more-inflammatory-than-reality manner. But I'd prefer to have D3 documentation in the form of free, interactive Observable Notebooks rather than to have no documentation at all. Even more so if it helps out the authors of the open-source library. As a tip for those who have difficulties going from the reactive Observable model to vanilla js -> you can always just take an observable notebook and ask AI to convert it to a set of vanilla files for you. PS - Sorry for the novel, at an airport!

kowlo 2y ago

It's a shame - and I'm not sure why they did it other than to use D3.js' popularity promote Observable.

the_real_cher 2y ago

When did Observable get their hands on D3? Last time I looked at D3 a half decade or so ago I thought it was an open source lib?

infecto 2y ago
Past few years but I don’t have a timeline handy. I am probably ignoring important details but Mike Bostock cofounded observable maybe 4-5 years ago? So for all intents and purposes they have always been the same crew but they made a conscious decision to tightly intertwine d3 docs with observable notebooks.
gaws 2y ago
> When did Observable get their hands on D3? Observable and D3 were created by the same person.