4 ms·

I think the idea is that it's simple — it's just a basic data structure in the language and can be generated or manipulated with just simple JavaScript. This is

by chc 13y ago

I think the idea is that it's simple — it's just a basic data structure in the language and can be generated or manipulated with just simple JavaScript. This is similar to why Lisp programs being Lisp data structures is interesting. Intriguingly, it looks like the API is compatible with React's JSX. With that, you could write this as: @jsx m todo.view = function(ctrl) { return ( <html> <body> <input/> <button>Add</button> <table> <tr> <td><input type="checkbox"/></td> <td>Desk description</td> </tr> </table> </body> </html> ); }

ulisesrmzroche 13y ago
Adding some more css declarations, id, data-hooks, etc., and make it span 100+ lines, like in real life. Scares me just thinking about it.
- chc 13y ago
  Are those things you wouldn't have to do under any other system, or which would be significantly simpler there? Because I'm not seeing it. You seem to be saying "This involves building a web page" — which is true, but would be regardless.
  - ulisesrmzroche 13y ago
    Yes, it would be simplificantly simpler to edit html if it wasn't stuck in between two strings, for one, let alone inside an array. todo.view = function(ctrl) { return m("html", [ m("body class='application", [ m("input class='add input input-sm input-md"), m("button class='btn btn-success button-green", "Add"), m("table class='table table-strped table-row", [ m("tr class='tr'", [ m("td", [ m("input[type=checkbox] class='checkbox input input-sm' id=firstName name=firstName") ]), m("td class='td", "task description"), ]) ]) ]) ]); }; I honestly can't tell you what the hell that is supposed to be anymore. Also, you guys are using invalid html for everything. Your example is not going to validate on anything.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - danneu 13y ago
      > Yes, it would be simplificantly simpler to edit html > if it wasn't stuck in between two strings > ... > m("body class='application", ... You would put attributes in an object. m("body", {class: "application"}, [ ... ]) Sure, it's no Lisp, but to me it's just Javascript's commas that suck the thunder out of it.
      - insin 13y ago
        This is exactly why JSX is such a big win for this method of creating content - it's just sugar for the same function calls, but expressed in a form we're already used to multiply-nesting, with closing tags to help keep context and no need for commas when you need to break a line. Quite neat that you can use it for non-React stuff just by tweaking the pragma comment the JSX transformer requires. Here's an actual example of a Bootstrap table in a React component using JSX: https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/components/steps/QuoteInfo.jsx https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/component... There's not much display logic in it, so it doesn't exhibit the usual progression I've seen when writing React components so far, in which most display logic happens up-front in a component's render() and often gets moved into another method and called directly from where it's going to go in the structure being returned from render(), so you generally don't end up with huge whacks of JSX in components which are doing more work.
        chc 13y ago
        To be clear, my example wouldn't actually work. I had a brain fart about JSX's output format. Sorry about that. I do think it would be pretty easy to adapt it to this format, though (it looks like you'd just need to change one line in the visitReactTag() function).
        zpao 13y ago
        You could actually do this without a single change to the JSX transform, and instead just make a simple object that calls m() with the right params. Then you just change the @jsx pragma to point at that object. With a complete array of elements this should mostly work. ```js / @jsx m.dom */ function m(type, props, children) { // assuming m() looks something like this. return { type: type, props: props, children: children}; } m.render = function(lwDOM){ console.log(lwDOM)}; m.dom = {}; // React hard codes this array so we can do something like this to build the mapping ['a', 'span'].forEach((el) => { m.dom[el] = function(props, ...args) { return m.call(null, el, props, args); } }); m.render( <a href={"google.com"}> <span>hello</span> <span>world</span> </a> ); ```
Bahamut 13y ago
That is ugly as heck - for some of the complaints that some people have with Angular's templating, it doesn't force you into tying your view so heavily to JS. That is far more of a travesty.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by chc 13y ago

ulisesrmzroche 13y ago

Adding some more css declarations, id, data-hooks, etc., and make it span 100+ lines, like in real life. Scares me just thinking about it.

chc 13y ago
Are those things you wouldn't have to do under any other system, or which would be significantly simpler there? Because I'm not seeing it. You seem to be saying "This involves building a web page" — which is true, but would be regardless.
- ulisesrmzroche 13y ago
  Yes, it would be simplificantly simpler to edit html if it wasn't stuck in between two strings, for one, let alone inside an array. todo.view = function(ctrl) { return m("html", [ m("body class='application", [ m("input class='add input input-sm input-md"), m("button class='btn btn-success button-green", "Add"), m("table class='table table-strped table-row", [ m("tr class='tr'", [ m("td", [ m("input[type=checkbox] class='checkbox input input-sm' id=firstName name=firstName") ]), m("td class='td", "task description"), ]) ]) ]) ]); }; I honestly can't tell you what the hell that is supposed to be anymore. Also, you guys are using invalid html for everything. Your example is not going to validate on anything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - danneu 13y ago
    > Yes, it would be simplificantly simpler to edit html > if it wasn't stuck in between two strings > ... > m("body class='application", ... You would put attributes in an object. m("body", {class: "application"}, [ ... ]) Sure, it's no Lisp, but to me it's just Javascript's commas that suck the thunder out of it.
    - insin 13y ago
      This is exactly why JSX is such a big win for this method of creating content - it's just sugar for the same function calls, but expressed in a form we're already used to multiply-nesting, with closing tags to help keep context and no need for commas when you need to break a line. Quite neat that you can use it for non-React stuff just by tweaking the pragma comment the JSX transformer requires. Here's an actual example of a Bootstrap table in a React component using JSX: https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/components/steps/QuoteInfo.jsx https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/component... There's not much display logic in it, so it doesn't exhibit the usual progression I've seen when writing React components so far, in which most display logic happens up-front in a component's render() and often gets moved into another method and called directly from where it's going to go in the structure being returned from render(), so you generally don't end up with huge whacks of JSX in components which are doing more work.
      - chc 13y ago
        To be clear, my example wouldn't actually work. I had a brain fart about JSX's output format. Sorry about that. I do think it would be pretty easy to adapt it to this format, though (it looks like you'd just need to change one line in the visitReactTag() function).
        zpao 13y ago
        You could actually do this without a single change to the JSX transform, and instead just make a simple object that calls m() with the right params. Then you just change the @jsx pragma to point at that object. With a complete array of elements this should mostly work. ```js / @jsx m.dom */ function m(type, props, children) { // assuming m() looks something like this. return { type: type, props: props, children: children}; } m.render = function(lwDOM){ console.log(lwDOM)}; m.dom = {}; // React hard codes this array so we can do something like this to build the mapping ['a', 'span'].forEach((el) => { m.dom[el] = function(props, ...args) { return m.call(null, el, props, args); } }); m.render( <a href={"google.com"}> <span>hello</span> <span>world</span> </a> ); ```

Bahamut 13y ago

That is ugly as heck - for some of the complaints that some people have with Angular's templating, it doesn't force you into tying your view so heavily to JS. That is far more of a travesty.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]