tchvil

10 ms·

91.
by tchvil 15y ago
What would help you start then? Another type of documentation? Just browsing the app?
92.
by tchvil 15y ago
A big advantage of CANVAS is to display charts on Android phones. Most of today's Google charts use SVG that, for some obscure reasons, can't be displayed on these devices out of the box.
93.
by tchvil 15y ago
We did that for several years with web apps over SAP. We developed a series of reusable building blocks, grabbed from one implementation to the other. But what was presented to clients were nice and trendy png screens, based on the last inf
94.
by tchvil 16y ago
The Google docs team stopped to use contentEditable and developed instead a new "editing surface and layout engine" in Javascript. http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2010/05/whats-different-about... I don't have an iPad(yet), but I tried a ve
95.
by tchvil 16y ago
Do you plan to release the list of blocked sites to the public?
96.
by tchvil 16y ago
On top of counting the block votes, Google could check if the site is crippled by AdSense links. This could filter some shot-down-my-competitor efforts.
97.
by tchvil 16y ago
My comment supposed you need to compile the templates once. In that case the whole app is compiled once in the tens msec. Not at each rendering.
98.
by tchvil 16y ago
In the case of a web app, the main benefit for me is you outsource the rendering of the HTML to the,usually idle, browser. Your server is freed to deliver only data. And for recurrent visitors. The logic(HTML, CSS, JS) is in the browser's
99.
by tchvil 16y ago
This is valid for server side templating. In the browser you will not render thousand times a template. And the tens milliseconds you will save if you pre-compile the template is irrelevant compared to the hundreds milliseconds of network l
100.
by tchvil 16y ago
I guess people feel at home with a double-brackets template engine. It mimics what exist server side for ages. A pity as HTML in the browser is a DOM, not a sliced string.
101.
by tchvil 16y ago
I wrote it. What makes jQuery and Mustache preferable? I know pure.js is different, but having the HTML clean of any tags or logic is something new and very flexible.
102.
by tchvil 16y ago
We use pure.js to render our entire app. There is no server rendering at all and I find it fast. Here's a link to a demo https://beebole-apps.com/?demo&lang=en_US&x=2
103.
by tchvil 16y ago
I'm surprised you say it is slow, the first version of pure.js was built with "pure:..." attributes, and it was as fast as the current version.
104.
by tchvil 16y ago
PURE had ~50 lines when starting, but then the real life came with its clunky browsers, various libs and functionality needs.
105.
by tchvil 16y ago
For a real world exemple, check out our app http://beebole-apps.com/?demo , the rendering is entirely built client side with a Javascript templating engine (PURE).
106.
by tchvil 16y ago
When I started to build "my" template engine, I took a total different route than django template. I wanted the HTML and the logic(javascript) strictly separated. The designer can build and maintain the HTML while the developer can write JS
107.
by tchvil 16y ago
I think you could limit python for server tasks(data read/write, security and authentication). We use Erlang for that. Then choose in which language the server talks to the world(browsers, mobile apps, native apps, flash,...) usually throug
108.
by tchvil 16y ago
The big difference PURE has with other templating engine is the total separation between the HTML representation and the JS logic. As a result the JS code is live at rendering time and not stringified, allowing to pass functions as paramete
109.
by tchvil 16y ago
We are just starting to test http://www.adyen.com/ in our web app. The guys at http://www.knowledgeplaza.net are using it for a while and recommended it to us.
110.
by tchvil 16y ago
Hey boss, I learned 50 jokes last year. Will I have my pay rise?