RE: TypeScript summary

[Paul Glavich]

Corneliu et al,

 

Just to add/answer a few extras

* Yeoman is a scaffolder – install it and go “yo Aurelia” (from memory) 
and you get an entire working project all setup

* Angular2 and Aurelia are both reasonable choices (IMHO). I do like 
the Aurelia syntax better

o   The mobile performance will be critical to both of these

* Both are reasonable learning curves

* The future is ES6/Ecmascript2015, modules and classes (IMHO). 
Typescript helps but ES6 is the killer syntax (IMHO). Learn ES6 and you can 
really start to structure your JS packages much better but coupled with a 
module loader/dependency manager, it is very good (see point below).

* Coupled above with an excellent package manager like JSPM which can 
load, minify and bundle your JS dependencies and packages. It really is good. 
It is smart enough to know what all your dependencies are and make them 
available in one file.

* >> Side note> Angular1 requires a massive amount of work to get 
anything working

o   I don’t really agree with that although it does take more work. We use 
Angular 1 with little work and have a complex set of functionality built using 
it and it really helped. But that’s a side note/opinion.

* Been also using Ionic which is based on Angular 1 (amongst other 
things). Its great. It will be moving to Angular2 when its out so I’d say its 
worth learning both Angular2 and Aurelia just for that.

 

Finally, if you learn nothing else, learn ES6 and JSPM. They can really help in 
your decision making.

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Corneliu I. Tusnea
Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 4:14 PM
To: ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
Subject: Re: TypeScript summary

 

Thomas,

 

You can just add aurelia to the head and be done and started just like 
Angular(1) albeit your productivity will be slow.

 

Your issues sound to me like saying I can just open Notepad and start coding my 
C# project. Why would I install Visual Studio?

Why would you install Nuget or MSBuild or System.Web.Optimization libraries to 
bundle JS files? You installed them all as part of Visual Studio, that's the 
only difference.

- node.js is like .Net framework (that comes these days as part of Windows)

- gulp is msbuild

- nuget is npm and bower

- System.Web.Optimization is like jspm + nuget

- Yeoman - I have no idea, I haven't installed or used that

- systemjs is not required, it's a nice to have to make things easier to load 
and do the bundling/dependency resolving to avoid you to "just add another .js 
file to the head". You can keep doing that and not need systemjs. Kind of the 
.Net BundleCollection on steroids.

- Babel - don't know, didn't use it.

- TypeScript - it's an awesome option that compiles down to JS directly without 
Babel. You really want to use this unless to avoid writing JS. Typescript looks 
and feels like C# instead of JS.

Again, it's optional but heck, I hate JS

 

You can get prepared startup projects for VisualStudio with none of the above 
odd tools:

https://github.com/cmichaelgraham/aurelia-typescript/tree/master/skel-nav-require-vs-ts

Clean, .Net solution with couple of JS files. 

 

Side note> Angular1 requires a massive amount of work to get anything working 
and get a project more than a simple demo of the ground. Angular2 has a hard to 
read syntax. How am I supposed to make the difference between (click) and 
[click] and {click} and what each does?

 

Look, I totally hate JS and I only started to use these tools myself last week, 
I also found the confusing at times and all have funny names and can't figure 
out why there are configurations for requirejs, amd, system, systemjs and 4 
other loader libraries or what are the differences between them but heck, after 
few days of work I got something cool working, and a great UI that I tried to 
build before in Angular and I hated myself every day I had to learn some random 
new awkward behaviour, directive, service, provider, filter ...

 

I found Aurelia to rock in design and simplicity compared to Angular and found 
it fast to learn and apply.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Koster <tkos...@gmail.com 
<mailto:tkos...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On 9 September 2015 at 13:18, Corneliu I. Tusnea
<corne...@acorns.com.au <mailto:corne...@acorns.com.au> > wrote:
> Compared to Augular2 Aurelia simply rocks and it's so dead easy to
> setup.

Aurelia looks interesting, but a quick scan through "Getting
Started" [1] reveals that you need the following to, ah, get started:

- node.js for the entire toolchain,
- Gulp to build,
- jspm or bower for front end package management,
- Yeoman for scaffolding,
- systemjs for client-side DI,
- Babel, CoffeeScript or TypeScript for "compiling" to browser-
  compatible ES5/JavaS

Re: TypeScript summary

[Corneliu I. Tusnea]

Thomas,

You can just add aurelia to the head and be done and started just like
Angular(1) albeit your productivity will be slow.

Your issues sound to me like saying I can just open Notepad and start
coding my C# project. Why would I install Visual Studio?
Why would you install Nuget or MSBuild or System.Web.Optimization libraries
to bundle JS files? You installed them all as part of Visual Studio, that's
the only difference.
- node.js is like .Net framework (that comes these days as part of Windows)
- gulp is msbuild
- nuget is npm and bower
- System.Web.Optimization is like jspm + nuget
- Yeoman - I have no idea, I haven't installed or used that
- systemjs is not required, it's a nice to have to make things easier to
load and do the bundling/dependency resolving to avoid you to "just add
another .js file to the head". You can keep doing that and not need
systemjs. Kind of the .Net BundleCollection on steroids.
- Babel - don't know, didn't use it.
- TypeScript - it's an awesome option that compiles down to JS directly
without Babel. You really want to use this unless to avoid writing JS.
Typescript looks and feels like C# instead of JS.
Again, it's optional but heck, I hate JS

You can get prepared startup projects for VisualStudio with none of the
above odd tools:
https://github.com/cmichaelgraham/aurelia-typescript/tree/master/skel-nav-require-vs-ts
Clean, .Net solution with couple of JS files.

Side note> Angular1 requires a massive amount of work to get anything
working and get a project more than a simple demo of the ground. Angular2
has a hard to read syntax. How am I supposed to make the difference between
(click) and [click] and {click} and what each does?

Look, I totally hate JS and I only started to use these tools myself last
week, I also found the confusing at times and all have funny names and
can't figure out why there are configurations for requirejs, amd, system,
systemjs and 4 other loader libraries or what are the differences between
them but heck, after few days of work I got something cool working, and a
great UI that I tried to build before in Angular and I hated myself every
day I had to learn some random new awkward behaviour, directive, service,
provider, filter ...

I found Aurelia to rock in design and simplicity compared to Angular and
found it fast to learn and apply.

Just my 2 cents.



On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Koster  wrote:

> On 9 September 2015 at 13:18, Corneliu I. Tusnea
>  wrote:
> > Compared to Augular2 Aurelia simply rocks and it's so dead easy to
> > setup.
>
> Aurelia looks interesting, but a quick scan through "Getting
> Started" [1] reveals that you need the following to, ah, get started:
>
> - node.js for the entire toolchain,
> - Gulp to build,
> - jspm or bower for front end package management,
> - Yeoman for scaffolding,
> - systemjs for client-side DI,
> - Babel, CoffeeScript or TypeScript for "compiling" to browser-
>   compatible ES5/JavaScript.
>
> I have none of these things installed, yet I can start a new AngularJS
> project today by simply adding angular.js to my html head.
>
> Do you mean something else by "dead easy to setup"? All this sounds
> exactly like the JS ecosystem hell that Greg K meant.
>
> [1] http://aurelia.io/get-started.html
>
> --
> Thomas Koster
>

Re: TypeScript summary

[Corneliu I. Tusnea]

Greg,

Interesting comments.

I have to say I started about a week ago learning TypeScript + Aurelia (
http://aurelia.io/) which is an alternative to Angular2 and my experience
it's been very very good.
Yes, I had few bumps here and there as I need to use Typescript 1.5.3 beta
and Aurelia is still in beta as well but I have to say that in less than 2
days of work I build a super crazy & cool UI with with a relative complex
ui, lots of interactions, several model, pages, views and so on.
I hate JS, I dislike it so much and always found it so hard to code in JS
but TS + Aurelia I think they rock together.

Compared to Augular2 Aurelia simply rocks and it's so dead easy to setup.

My 2 cents from a non JS developer.

Regards,
Corneliu.





On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Paul Glavich <subscripti...@theglavs.com>
wrote:

> >> JS ecosystem can go to hell.
>
> Lol. It has been there already. J It re-wrote hell in the form of a
> closure.
>
>
>
> Seriously though in answer to react comment below, I too find react’s
> syntax atrocious. Note that there is nothing at all related to react and
> C#/MVC. It is a fast rendering system by way of the shadow dom usage. It
> does have a good composition model but I simply cannot stand its syntax.
> You give up an easy to read syntax for speed and composability. Flux is a
> pattern library that is an augmentation to react that I think is quite good
> but could be used without react as well.
>
>
>
> It is the new black in terms of frameworks to use though so people are
> saying its awesome and everything else is crap, which is kind of the
> polarising community of JS dev. It is only at version 0.13.3 so it is so
> immature I would not entertain it at this time, but many are.
>
>
>
> -  Glav
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Tony Wright
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 August 2015 12:11 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
> *Subject:* Re: TypeScript summary
>
>
>
> I wouldn't mind knowing what is so good about React. I'm not enjoying the
> syntax of React so far. At the moment if I was to build a new substantial
> app it would be using Angular. I feel that you can write some pretty
> substantial applications in Angular. Having had a dabble with React, I
> don't get the same feeling, so I am wondering if the hype is bigger than
> the product itself?
>
>
>
> I know React is more about the V in MVC and Angular covers the entire MVC
> pattern in Javascript, but I am trying to understand - are they still
> essentially trying to solve a similar problem? I can go without using C#
> MVC applications at all (excepting WebApi) with Angular, so is the
> difference that React is meant to be used in conjunction with C# MVC
> solutions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, William Luu <will@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RE: DOM manipulation.
>
>
>
> Here's a (intro and) comparison between DOM manipulation jQuery and React
>
>
> http://reactfordesigners.com/labs/reactjs-introduction-for-people-who-know-just-enough-jquery-to-get-by/
>
>
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 10:03, Bec C <bec.usern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for Greg's comments. Coming from a sql background I found it relatively
> easy to jump into c# and .net but my jump to JS wasn't so smooth
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In summary,
> a few weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven demo app
> which is simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so currently so
> trendy I spent several hours attempting to learn and use it, but due to
> lack of an IDE, no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse syntax and
> complex dependencies I gave up (then I learn it's being rewritten in
> TypeScript anyway). I've expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of uncoordinated
> and competing JS libraries.
>
> I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript, as
> the familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a C++/Java/C#
> background. Given my belief that the JS world is really chaotic, my overall
> conclusion is:
>
> *TypeScript is organised chaos.*
>
> I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform you
> could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular
> spaghetti. Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make
> it feel OOPish and respectable to people with my background, but it's still
> just putting a wedding gown on a pig.
>
> The good news is though, that once I eventually found

Re: TypeScript summary

[Greg Keogh]

>
> Compared to Augular2 Aurelia simply rocks and it's so dead easy to setup.
> My 2 cents from a non JS developer.
>

OK, Ta! I'll bear this in mind when I return to JS related work next time.
I see Aurelia is a split off from Angular, and it's the
next-next-next-next-gen JS framework ... I'm sure the next one out will be
out by the time I return ;-)

*Greg*

Re: TypeScript summary

[Thomas Koster]

On 9 September 2015 at 13:18, Corneliu I. Tusnea
 wrote:
> Compared to Augular2 Aurelia simply rocks and it's so dead easy to
> setup.

Aurelia looks interesting, but a quick scan through "Getting
Started" [1] reveals that you need the following to, ah, get started:

- node.js for the entire toolchain,
- Gulp to build,
- jspm or bower for front end package management,
- Yeoman for scaffolding,
- systemjs for client-side DI,
- Babel, CoffeeScript or TypeScript for "compiling" to browser-
  compatible ES5/JavaScript.

I have none of these things installed, yet I can start a new AngularJS
project today by simply adding angular.js to my html head.

Do you mean something else by "dead easy to setup"? All this sounds
exactly like the JS ecosystem hell that Greg K meant.

[1] http://aurelia.io/get-started.html

--
Thomas Koster

Re: TypeScript summary

[William Luu]

Jake Ginnivan gave a talk on React during DDD Melbourne recently, a video
of it was posted recently if anyone is interested in that.
http://tv.ssw.com/6369/why-react-really-is-different-jake-ginnivan-ddd-melbourne-2015

On 26 August 2015 at 12:10, Tony Wright  wrote:

> I wouldn't mind knowing what is so good about React. I'm not enjoying the
> syntax of React so far. At the moment if I was to build a new substantial
> app it would be using Angular. I feel that you can write some pretty
> substantial applications in Angular. Having had a dabble with React, I
> don't get the same feeling, so I am wondering if the hype is bigger than
> the product itself?
>
> I know React is more about the V in MVC and Angular covers the entire MVC
> pattern in Javascript, but I am trying to understand - are they still
> essentially trying to solve a similar problem? I can go without using C#
> MVC applications at all (excepting WebApi) with Angular, so is the
> difference that React is meant to be used in conjunction with C# MVC
> solutions?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, William Luu  wrote:
>
>> RE: DOM manipulation.
>>
>> Here's a (intro and) comparison between DOM manipulation jQuery and React
>>
>> http://reactfordesigners.com/labs/reactjs-introduction-for-people-who-know-just-enough-jquery-to-get-by/
>>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 10:03, Bec C  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for Greg's comments. Coming from a sql background I found it
>>> relatively easy to jump into c# and .net but my jump to JS wasn't so smooth
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
>>>
 I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In
 summary, a few weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven
 demo app which is simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so
 currently so trendy I spent several hours attempting to learn and use it,
 but due to lack of an IDE, no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse
 syntax and complex dependencies I gave up (then I learn it's being
 rewritten in TypeScript anyway). I've expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of
 uncoordinated and competing JS libraries.

 I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript,
 as the familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a
 C++/Java/C# background. Given my belief that the JS world is really
 chaotic, my overall conclusion is:

 *TypeScript is organised chaos.*

 I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform
 you could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular
 spaghetti. Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make
 it feel OOPish and respectable to people with my background, but it's still
 just putting a wedding gown on a pig.

 The good news is though, that once I eventually found guidance on how
 to organise multiple TS source files, how to use module { } like
 namespaces, when to use the , and why you use --out to concat
 files, then TS is probably the least worst option I've seen so far for
 writing large JS apps. At least you will finish up with organised modular
 chaos.

 So you might be able to tame JS with TS, but we are still stuck with
 the cumbersome DOM and jQuery. While trying to give my web page app
 behaviour I had to have jQuery reference web pages continuously open so I
 could remember the arcane and inconsistent syntax to do the simplest things
 like toggling visibility or setting text or class attributes. This isn't
 really a JS related problem, but I find manipulating the DOM from JS and
 jQuery tedious beyond endurance.
 In fact my endurance is exhausted. I will not write the demo and have
 commissioned someone else to do it. They write this sort of thing for a
 living, so I look forward to learning how they do it. I've learnt a lot in
 recent weeks anyway and have decided that for future work like this I will
 use TS and jQuery because they're the least worst (for now), and the rest
 of the JS ecosystem can go to hell.

 *Greg K*

>>>
>>>
>>
>

RE: TypeScript summary

[Paul Glavich]

 JS ecosystem can go to hell.

Lol. It has been there already. :) It re-wrote hell in the form of a closure.

 

Seriously though in answer to react comment below, I too find react’s syntax 
atrocious. Note that there is nothing at all related to react and C#/MVC. It is 
a fast rendering system by way of the shadow dom usage. It does have a good 
composition model but I simply cannot stand its syntax. You give up an easy to 
read syntax for speed and composability. Flux is a pattern library that is an 
augmentation to react that I think is quite good but could be used without 
react as well.

 

It is the new black in terms of frameworks to use though so people are saying 
its awesome and everything else is crap, which is kind of the polarising 
community of JS dev. It is only at version 0.13.3 so it is so immature I would 
not entertain it at this time, but many are.

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Tony Wright
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2015 12:11 PM
To: ozDotNet ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com
Subject: Re: TypeScript summary

 

I wouldn't mind knowing what is so good about React. I'm not enjoying the 
syntax of React so far. At the moment if I was to build a new substantial app 
it would be using Angular. I feel that you can write some pretty substantial 
applications in Angular. Having had a dabble with React, I don't get the same 
feeling, so I am wondering if the hype is bigger than the product itself?

 

I know React is more about the V in MVC and Angular covers the entire MVC 
pattern in Javascript, but I am trying to understand - are they still 
essentially trying to solve a similar problem? I can go without using C# MVC 
applications at all (excepting WebApi) with Angular, so is the difference that 
React is meant to be used in conjunction with C# MVC solutions?

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, William Luu will@gmail.com 
mailto:will@gmail.com  wrote:

RE: DOM manipulation.

 

Here's a (intro and) comparison between DOM manipulation jQuery and React

http://reactfordesigners.com/labs/reactjs-introduction-for-people-who-know-just-enough-jquery-to-get-by/

 

On 26 August 2015 at 10:03, Bec C bec.usern...@gmail.com 
mailto:bec.usern...@gmail.com  wrote:

+1 for Greg's comments. Coming from a sql background I found it relatively easy 
to jump into c# and .net but my jump to JS wasn't so smooth

 

 

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Keogh gfke...@gmail.com 
mailto:gfke...@gmail.com  wrote:

I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In summary, a few 
weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven demo app which is 
simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so currently so trendy I 
spent several hours attempting to learn and use it, but due to lack of an IDE, 
no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse syntax and complex dependencies I 
gave up (then I learn it's being rewritten in TypeScript anyway). I've 
expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of uncoordinated and competing JS libraries.

I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript, as the 
familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a C++/Java/C# 
background. Given my belief that the JS world is really chaotic, my overall 
conclusion is:

TypeScript is organised chaos.

I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform you 
could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular spaghetti. 
Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make it feel OOPish 
and respectable to people with my background, but it's still just putting a 
wedding gown on a pig.

The good news is though, that once I eventually found guidance on how to 
organise multiple TS source files, how to use module { } like namespaces, when 
to use the reference, and why you use --out to concat files, then TS is 
probably the least worst option I've seen so far for writing large JS apps. At 
least you will finish up with organised modular chaos.

So you might be able to tame JS with TS, but we are still stuck with the 
cumbersome DOM and jQuery. While trying to give my web page app behaviour I had 
to have jQuery reference web pages continuously open so I could remember the 
arcane and inconsistent syntax to do the simplest things like toggling 
visibility or setting text or class attributes. This isn't really a JS related 
problem, but I find manipulating the DOM from JS and jQuery tedious beyond 
endurance.

In fact my endurance is exhausted. I will not write the demo and have 
commissioned someone else to do it. They write this sort of thing for a living, 
so I look forward to learning how they do it. I've learnt a lot in recent weeks 
anyway and have decided that for future work like this I will use TS and jQuery 
because they're the least worst (for now), and the rest of the JS ecosystem can 
go to hell.

 

Greg K

 

 

 

Re: TypeScript summary

[Bec C]

+1 for Greg's comments. Coming from a sql background I found it relatively
easy to jump into c# and .net but my jump to JS wasn't so smooth

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Keogh gfke...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In summary,
 a few weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven demo app
 which is simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so currently so
 trendy I spent several hours attempting to learn and use it, but due to
 lack of an IDE, no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse syntax and
 complex dependencies I gave up (then I learn it's being rewritten in
 TypeScript anyway). I've expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of uncoordinated
 and competing JS libraries.

 I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript, as
 the familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a C++/Java/C#
 background. Given my belief that the JS world is really chaotic, my overall
 conclusion is:

 *TypeScript is organised chaos.*

 I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform you
 could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular
 spaghetti. Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make
 it feel OOPish and respectable to people with my background, but it's still
 just putting a wedding gown on a pig.

 The good news is though, that once I eventually found guidance on how to
 organise multiple TS source files, how to use module { } like namespaces,
 when to use the reference, and why you use --out to concat files, then TS
 is probably the least worst option I've seen so far for writing large JS
 apps. At least you will finish up with organised modular chaos.

 So you might be able to tame JS with TS, but we are still stuck with the
 cumbersome DOM and jQuery. While trying to give my web page app behaviour I
 had to have jQuery reference web pages continuously open so I could
 remember the arcane and inconsistent syntax to do the simplest things like
 toggling visibility or setting text or class attributes. This isn't really
 a JS related problem, but I find manipulating the DOM from JS and jQuery
 tedious beyond endurance.
 In fact my endurance is exhausted. I will not write the demo and have
 commissioned someone else to do it. They write this sort of thing for a
 living, so I look forward to learning how they do it. I've learnt a lot in
 recent weeks anyway and have decided that for future work like this I will
 use TS and jQuery because they're the least worst (for now), and the rest
 of the JS ecosystem can go to hell.

 *Greg K*

TypeScript summary

[Greg Keogh]

I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In summary, a
few weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven demo app
which is simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so currently so
trendy I spent several hours attempting to learn and use it, but due to
lack of an IDE, no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse syntax and
complex dependencies I gave up (then I learn it's being rewritten in
TypeScript anyway). I've expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of uncoordinated
and competing JS libraries.

I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript, as
the familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a C++/Java/C#
background. Given my belief that the JS world is really chaotic, my overall
conclusion is:

*TypeScript is organised chaos.*

I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform you
could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular
spaghetti. Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make
it feel OOPish and respectable to people with my background, but it's still
just putting a wedding gown on a pig.

The good news is though, that once I eventually found guidance on how to
organise multiple TS source files, how to use module { } like namespaces,
when to use the reference, and why you use --out to concat files, then TS
is probably the least worst option I've seen so far for writing large JS
apps. At least you will finish up with organised modular chaos.

So you might be able to tame JS with TS, but we are still stuck with the
cumbersome DOM and jQuery. While trying to give my web page app behaviour I
had to have jQuery reference web pages continuously open so I could
remember the arcane and inconsistent syntax to do the simplest things like
toggling visibility or setting text or class attributes. This isn't really
a JS related problem, but I find manipulating the DOM from JS and jQuery
tedious beyond endurance.
In fact my endurance is exhausted. I will not write the demo and have
commissioned someone else to do it. They write this sort of thing for a
living, so I look forward to learning how they do it. I've learnt a lot in
recent weeks anyway and have decided that for future work like this I will
use TS and jQuery because they're the least worst (for now), and the rest
of the JS ecosystem can go to hell.

*Greg K*

Re: TypeScript summary

[William Luu]

RE: DOM manipulation.

Here's a (intro and) comparison between DOM manipulation jQuery and React
http://reactfordesigners.com/labs/reactjs-introduction-for-people-who-know-just-enough-jquery-to-get-by/

On 26 August 2015 at 10:03, Bec C bec.usern...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1 for Greg's comments. Coming from a sql background I found it relatively
 easy to jump into c# and .net but my jump to JS wasn't so smooth


 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Keogh gfke...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In summary,
 a few weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven demo app
 which is simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so currently so
 trendy I spent several hours attempting to learn and use it, but due to
 lack of an IDE, no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse syntax and
 complex dependencies I gave up (then I learn it's being rewritten in
 TypeScript anyway). I've expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of uncoordinated
 and competing JS libraries.

 I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript,
 as the familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a
 C++/Java/C# background. Given my belief that the JS world is really
 chaotic, my overall conclusion is:

 *TypeScript is organised chaos.*

 I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform
 you could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular
 spaghetti. Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make
 it feel OOPish and respectable to people with my background, but it's still
 just putting a wedding gown on a pig.

 The good news is though, that once I eventually found guidance on how to
 organise multiple TS source files, how to use module { } like namespaces,
 when to use the reference, and why you use --out to concat files, then TS
 is probably the least worst option I've seen so far for writing large JS
 apps. At least you will finish up with organised modular chaos.

 So you might be able to tame JS with TS, but we are still stuck with the
 cumbersome DOM and jQuery. While trying to give my web page app behaviour I
 had to have jQuery reference web pages continuously open so I could
 remember the arcane and inconsistent syntax to do the simplest things like
 toggling visibility or setting text or class attributes. This isn't really
 a JS related problem, but I find manipulating the DOM from JS and jQuery
 tedious beyond endurance.
 In fact my endurance is exhausted. I will not write the demo and have
 commissioned someone else to do it. They write this sort of thing for a
 living, so I look forward to learning how they do it. I've learnt a lot in
 recent weeks anyway and have decided that for future work like this I will
 use TS and jQuery because they're the least worst (for now), and the rest
 of the JS ecosystem can go to hell.

 *Greg K*

Re: TypeScript summary

[Tony Wright]

I wouldn't mind knowing what is so good about React. I'm not enjoying the
syntax of React so far. At the moment if I was to build a new substantial
app it would be using Angular. I feel that you can write some pretty
substantial applications in Angular. Having had a dabble with React, I
don't get the same feeling, so I am wondering if the hype is bigger than
the product itself?

I know React is more about the V in MVC and Angular covers the entire MVC
pattern in Javascript, but I am trying to understand - are they still
essentially trying to solve a similar problem? I can go without using C#
MVC applications at all (excepting WebApi) with Angular, so is the
difference that React is meant to be used in conjunction with C# MVC
solutions?



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, William Luu will@gmail.com wrote:

 RE: DOM manipulation.

 Here's a (intro and) comparison between DOM manipulation jQuery and React

 http://reactfordesigners.com/labs/reactjs-introduction-for-people-who-know-just-enough-jquery-to-get-by/

 On 26 August 2015 at 10:03, Bec C bec.usern...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1 for Greg's comments. Coming from a sql background I found it
 relatively easy to jump into c# and .net but my jump to JS wasn't so smooth


 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Keogh gfke...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hope this is my final essay on JavaScript (and so do you!). In
 summary, a few weeks ago I volunteered to write an in-browser script driven
 demo app which is simply a navigation stack of 4 screens. Angular is so
 currently so trendy I spent several hours attempting to learn and use it,
 but due to lack of an IDE, no debugging, no guidance, the custom terse
 syntax and complex dependencies I gave up (then I learn it's being
 rewritten in TypeScript anyway). I've expressed my anger at the 'zoo' of
 uncoordinated and competing JS libraries.

 I spent all of yesterday optimistically studying and trying TypeScript,
 as the familiar IDE and structure seemed ideal for someone from a
 C++/Java/C# background. Given my belief that the JS world is really
 chaotic, my overall conclusion is:

 *TypeScript is organised chaos.*

 I was reminded of moving from C to C++ 20 years ago. C was so freeform
 you could write spaghetti. C++ helped you write object oriented modular
 spaghetti. Just like that, TS is trying to tame the JS spaghetti and make
 it feel OOPish and respectable to people with my background, but it's still
 just putting a wedding gown on a pig.

 The good news is though, that once I eventually found guidance on how to
 organise multiple TS source files, how to use module { } like namespaces,
 when to use the reference, and why you use --out to concat files, then TS
 is probably the least worst option I've seen so far for writing large JS
 apps. At least you will finish up with organised modular chaos.

 So you might be able to tame JS with TS, but we are still stuck with the
 cumbersome DOM and jQuery. While trying to give my web page app behaviour I
 had to have jQuery reference web pages continuously open so I could
 remember the arcane and inconsistent syntax to do the simplest things like
 toggling visibility or setting text or class attributes. This isn't really
 a JS related problem, but I find manipulating the DOM from JS and jQuery
 tedious beyond endurance.
 In fact my endurance is exhausted. I will not write the demo and have
 commissioned someone else to do it. They write this sort of thing for a
 living, so I look forward to learning how they do it. I've learnt a lot in
 recent weeks anyway and have decided that for future work like this I will
 use TS and jQuery because they're the least worst (for now), and the rest
 of the JS ecosystem can go to hell.

 *Greg K*