4 ms·
The difference is that the component project depends on Github. Bower is much more low-level and unopinionated. All you need is a Git path.
by kahlil 14y ago
The difference is that the component project depends on Github. Bower is much more low-level and unopinionated. All you need is a Git path.
- jacobr 14y agoSurely that could have been a pull request to Component instead?
- kahlil 14y agoI don't think so, because it is a different philosophy and as they say in the FAQ > Bower is a lower level component then Jam, Volo, or Ender. These managers could consume Bower as a dependency. I think it is actually an approach that is more useful and makes more sense than Volo, Components etc. because of it's low-levelness.
- dreamdu5t 14y agoThat's because without using GitHub, Bower's packages aren't namespaced. This was something discussed at length on the component spec github. It sure feels like Twitter is avoiding giving credit where credit is due. No links to the component.json spec or any mention of TJ Holowaychuk's component feels smarmy to me.
- benatkin 14y agoHis name is listed in the README. I think the next level of recognition would have been for him to contribute code, and for whatever reason, that didn't happen. It could be because TJ is busy doing other things, because development was closed, or because they disagreed on things, or a combination of reasons. I looked at the source and found that the initial public commit contains 79 files.
- tjholowaychuk 14y agoI had a bit of a different thing in mind, my implementation is here https://github.com/component/component https://github.com/component/component, it's certainly more opinionated, more of a framework almost, but solves more problems (of mine at least)