3 ms·

I’ve poked around a little the site. There’s a lot of “this is awesome” advertising. I still don’t know where this fits with Phoenix/liveview/bandit. Does it r

I’ve poked around a little the site. There’s a lot of “this is awesome” advertising. I still don’t know where this fits with Phoenix/liveview/bandit. Does it replace them? Why and to what end? Am I to use it as a companion? For which parts? In other words, which problems do I need to have to appreciate how cool this is?

bartblast 1y ago
Hologram is essentially a competitor to LiveView. Here's the key difference: LiveView: Renders UI updates on the server and sends them to the client. Hologram: Transpiles your Elixir UI code to JavaScript that runs entirely in the browser. You'll appreciate Hologram when you want to avoid LiveView's latency. For example: - Instantaneous UI interactions without client-server roundtrips - Real-time interactions like smooth drawing, drag-and-drop, or complex animations - Offline-capable applications that work without constant server communication - Reduced server load since UI logic runs client-side If you need truly responsive client-side interactions or want to reduce server roundtrips, that's where Hologram shines. It's the same Elixir developer experience, but with client-side performance characteristics. Think of it as "LiveView for when you need the UI to feel like a native app. Note: Currently Hologram requires Phoenix, but in the future you'll be able to run it as a standalone framework.
- skeezyboy 1y ago
  when i see the hoops webdevs have to jump through, i want to just tell you to code in native, youd love it
  - szajbus 1y ago
    ...and then jump through completely different set of hoops to distribute to multiple platforms
    - phkahler 1y ago
      GTK or QT take your pick.
    - skeezyboy 1y ago
      ...a recompile....
    - skeezyboy 1y ago
      yeah, how in the world are we ever gona update a binary in 2025... is this really still an issue? webdevs try to make GUI software in a browser for one reason; they can only code in web languages. Basically, if all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
      - gus_tpm 1y ago
        You are ignoring all of the advantages of writing a web client. Are you really saying that distributing a native app for every platform is better than writing something that uses the browser?
        skeezyboy 1y ago
        > You are ignoring all of the advantages of writing a web client. What are they exactly? Youve already mentioned distribution, but what else?
        szajbus 1y ago
        Well, distribution is the killer feature. More, it's inherent property of the platform (web). Web devs are in full control of their whole stack (excluding the browser where you occasionally need to account for incompatibilities), have to maintain only one version of the app (no upgrade needed on client-side), are not constrained by the platform owner's policies (app store tax). Yes, it's more limited than native technologies in other ways, so it's not an answer for every problem.
        1y ago
  - ramchip 1y ago
    Do you also go to police officers and tell them how much more they'd enjoy being a firefighter?
  - bartblast 1y ago
    I totally get the appeal of native development! But for many of us, we genuinely love coding in Elixir and want to use it everywhere we can. Elixir brings some incredible advantages: the Actor model for handling concurrency, fault tolerance, pattern matching, functional programming paradigms, and honestly just a really enjoyable developer experience. When you're already building your backend in Elixir and loving it, being able to use the same language, mental models, and tooling for the frontend is hugely appealing. It's less about avoiding native development and more about 'I already know and love this language - why not use it everywhere?' Similar to how JavaScript developers felt when Node.js let them use JS on the backend, or how Swift developers felt when SwiftUI came along.

bartblast 1y ago

Hologram is essentially a competitor to LiveView. Here's the key difference: LiveView: Renders UI updates on the server and sends them to the client. Hologram: Transpiles your Elixir UI code to JavaScript that runs entirely in the browser. You'll appreciate Hologram when you want to avoid LiveView's latency. For example: - Instantaneous UI interactions without client-server roundtrips - Real-time interactions like smooth drawing, drag-and-drop, or complex animations - Offline-capable applications that work without constant server communication - Reduced server load since UI logic runs client-side If you need truly responsive client-side interactions or want to reduce server roundtrips, that's where Hologram shines. It's the same Elixir developer experience, but with client-side performance characteristics. Think of it as "LiveView for when you need the UI to feel like a native app. Note: Currently Hologram requires Phoenix, but in the future you'll be able to run it as a standalone framework.

skeezyboy 1y ago
when i see the hoops webdevs have to jump through, i want to just tell you to code in native, youd love it
- szajbus 1y ago
  ...and then jump through completely different set of hoops to distribute to multiple platforms
  - phkahler 1y ago
    GTK or QT take your pick.
  - skeezyboy 1y ago
    ...a recompile....
  - skeezyboy 1y ago
    yeah, how in the world are we ever gona update a binary in 2025... is this really still an issue? webdevs try to make GUI software in a browser for one reason; they can only code in web languages. Basically, if all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
    - gus_tpm 1y ago
      You are ignoring all of the advantages of writing a web client. Are you really saying that distributing a native app for every platform is better than writing something that uses the browser?
      - skeezyboy 1y ago
        > You are ignoring all of the advantages of writing a web client. What are they exactly? Youve already mentioned distribution, but what else?
        szajbus 1y ago
        Well, distribution is the killer feature. More, it's inherent property of the platform (web). Web devs are in full control of their whole stack (excluding the browser where you occasionally need to account for incompatibilities), have to maintain only one version of the app (no upgrade needed on client-side), are not constrained by the platform owner's policies (app store tax). Yes, it's more limited than native technologies in other ways, so it's not an answer for every problem.
        1y ago
- ramchip 1y ago
  Do you also go to police officers and tell them how much more they'd enjoy being a firefighter?
- bartblast 1y ago
  I totally get the appeal of native development! But for many of us, we genuinely love coding in Elixir and want to use it everywhere we can. Elixir brings some incredible advantages: the Actor model for handling concurrency, fault tolerance, pattern matching, functional programming paradigms, and honestly just a really enjoyable developer experience. When you're already building your backend in Elixir and loving it, being able to use the same language, mental models, and tooling for the frontend is hugely appealing. It's less about avoiding native development and more about 'I already know and love this language - why not use it everywhere?' Similar to how JavaScript developers felt when Node.js let them use JS on the backend, or how Swift developers felt when SwiftUI came along.