4 ms·

Cool, but how does this meaningfully expand on the JavaScript ecosystem? Or more succinctly, "Why not Grunt?" What features does this provide to differentiate i

Cool, but how does this meaningfully expand on the JavaScript ecosystem? Or more succinctly, "Why not Grunt?" What features does this provide to differentiate itself from other, similar tools? People have already gotten tired of the JavaScript framework/build system/distribution tool bang. Improvements need to be more than incremental before people will choose to learn new APIs and be able to find new package ecosystems.

prezjordan 11y ago
You should be comparing this to gulp, which, like fly, prefers code over configuration. Gulp uses streams, this uses generators. Some folks may like the look and feel of generators more than streams.
- striking 11y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is: Gulp and Grunt exist, and have strong ecosystems. It's cool that this uses a swanky new ES6 feature. But is that really a big enough step up, that people should stop using what they're using and use this instead? If it came with a set of modules for other packages so people could at the very least try the demo version before they buy into it, and it really is that much cleaner and more powerful, then I think people could really get behind it. The trick to making a successful JS package nowadays is marketing, honestly.
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    Grunt existed when gulp was new, and it had a pretty strong ecosystem. Gulp was an alternate that solved the same problem in a different way, and it got pretty popular. Because of it, the next version of Grunt is totally different and uses ideas from Gulp. I find it disappointing how some people have such an allergic reaction to others trying something new. If you don't like it, don't use it.
    - mrec 11y ago
      I don't think he's allergic to others trying something new, I think he's just saying that the most important information for them to provide when doing so is "how is my approach different to/better than the existing tools?" Which is a valid point, IMO. When there already multiple widely-used tools that do X, marketing your new tool as "Does X!!!" isn't very compelling in itself.
twerkmonsta 11y ago
Yeah, cool logo, but this is almost exactly like Gulp. The first thing I want to see on the project page is something like "Why you should use this new tool over existing proven build systems with already flourishing ecosystems".
keedot 11y ago
Grunt is as elegant as a penguin on land, and about as fast. My gulpfile is a fraction of the size of my gruntfile, and executes much quicker. Gulp has some control flow edges, and requires some workarounds that can make it tedious to maintain when you get into edge cases. Broccoli is ideal, but too difficult for all my team member to understand (and was still a tad flakey when I last used it). I like to play with new ideas, and some of them don't end up hitting critical mass, but I appreciate their creation all the same. Often, they cause me to reconsider approaches I've taken on other projects. I'm starting a new project tonight and will give this a go. It may not work, and all I've lost is a few hours. Creation for creation sake is what we should be about. Not everything should be about differentiators, and productivity gains. Sometimes, it's far more rewarding to just create, or to use someone else's creation. Almost every painting I have ever seen did nothing to differentiate itself in style, but I'm glad every single last one of them was painted.
_greim_ 11y ago
> how does this meaningfully expand on the JavaScript ecosystem Moving from callback-based programming to generators + promises is like going from burning logs in dirt pits to gas stovetops. A build tool that incorporates it successfully deserves a hard look, at least.

prezjordan 11y ago

You should be comparing this to gulp, which, like fly, prefers code over configuration. Gulp uses streams, this uses generators. Some folks may like the look and feel of generators more than streams.

striking 11y ago
The point I'm trying to make is: Gulp and Grunt exist, and have strong ecosystems. It's cool that this uses a swanky new ES6 feature. But is that really a big enough step up, that people should stop using what they're using and use this instead? If it came with a set of modules for other packages so people could at the very least try the demo version before they buy into it, and it really is that much cleaner and more powerful, then I think people could really get behind it. The trick to making a successful JS package nowadays is marketing, honestly.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  Grunt existed when gulp was new, and it had a pretty strong ecosystem. Gulp was an alternate that solved the same problem in a different way, and it got pretty popular. Because of it, the next version of Grunt is totally different and uses ideas from Gulp. I find it disappointing how some people have such an allergic reaction to others trying something new. If you don't like it, don't use it.
  - mrec 11y ago
    I don't think he's allergic to others trying something new, I think he's just saying that the most important information for them to provide when doing so is "how is my approach different to/better than the existing tools?" Which is a valid point, IMO. When there already multiple widely-used tools that do X, marketing your new tool as "Does X!!!" isn't very compelling in itself.

twerkmonsta 11y ago

Yeah, cool logo, but this is almost exactly like Gulp. The first thing I want to see on the project page is something like "Why you should use this new tool over existing proven build systems with already flourishing ecosystems".

keedot 11y ago

Grunt is as elegant as a penguin on land, and about as fast. My gulpfile is a fraction of the size of my gruntfile, and executes much quicker. Gulp has some control flow edges, and requires some workarounds that can make it tedious to maintain when you get into edge cases. Broccoli is ideal, but too difficult for all my team member to understand (and was still a tad flakey when I last used it). I like to play with new ideas, and some of them don't end up hitting critical mass, but I appreciate their creation all the same. Often, they cause me to reconsider approaches I've taken on other projects. I'm starting a new project tonight and will give this a go. It may not work, and all I've lost is a few hours. Creation for creation sake is what we should be about. Not everything should be about differentiators, and productivity gains. Sometimes, it's far more rewarding to just create, or to use someone else's creation. Almost every painting I have ever seen did nothing to differentiate itself in style, but I'm glad every single last one of them was painted.

_greim_ 11y ago

> how does this meaningfully expand on the JavaScript ecosystem Moving from callback-based programming to generators + promises is like going from burning logs in dirt pits to gas stovetops. A build tool that incorporates it successfully deserves a hard look, at least.