27 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2022
  2. Mar 2021
  3. Nov 2020
    1. But I always thought that if Svelte will change its syntax to something new, it will more look like ES6 Template Literals
    2. Btw, I also personally like Dust-syntax: https://github.com/linkedin/dustjs/wiki/Dust-Tutorial
  4. Oct 2020
    1. I know that it is the matter of taste and a debatable thing, I find JSX and regular javascript flow operators a lot more readable than any sort of {#blocks} and directives.
    2. Yes, you cannot fully express a modern app through templates without sacrificing flexibility and code reusability.
    3. Because templates are not Turing-complete, and if they were, they would require vDOM.
    1. that does not mean that I am advocating the other extreme–i.e., a templating language that allows a lot of logic. I find such templating languages, especially those that allow the host programming languages to be used inside the template, to be hard to read, hard to maintain, and simply a bad choice.
  5. Sep 2020
    1. The complaint is that by choosing less powerful languages, template-based frameworks are then forced to reintroduce uncanny-valley versions of those constructs in order to add back in missing functionality, thereby increasing the mount of stuff people have to learn.
    2. In general, I'm unpersuaded by these arguments (learning curve is determined not just by unfamiliar syntax, but by unfamiliar semantics and APIs as well, and the frameworks in question excel at adding complexity in those areas).
    3. One of the arguments that's frequently deployed in favour of JSX-based frameworks over template-based ones is that JSX allows you to use existing language constructs:
    1. if the idea of using a template language makes you shudder — your fears are misplaced, but that's a topic for another day
  6. Jun 2020
    1. What would be nice is if JavaScript had a built-in way to do what I can do in Ruby with:

      > I18n.interpolate('Hi, %{name}', name: 'Fred')
      => "Hi, Fred"
      

      But to be fair, I18n comes from i18n library, so JS could just as easily (and I'm sure does) have a library that does the same thing.

      Update: Actually, you can do this in plain Ruby (so why do we even need I18n.interpolate?):

      main > "Hi, %{name}" % {name: 'Fred'}
      => "Hi, Fred"
      
      main > ? String#%
      
      From: string.c (C Method):
      Owner: String
      Visibility: public
      Signature: %(arg1)
      Number of lines: 9
      
      Format---Uses str as a format specification, and returns the result
      of applying it to arg. If the format specification contains more than
      one substitution, then arg must be an Array or Hash
      containing the values to be substituted. See Kernel::sprintf for
      details of the format string.
      
         "%05d" % 123                              #=> "00123"
         "%-5s: %016x" % [ "ID", self.object_id ]  #=> "ID   : 00002b054ec93168"
         "foo = %{foo}" % { :foo => 'bar' }        #=> "foo = bar"
      

      I guess that built-in version is fine for simple cases. You only need to use I18n.translate if you need its more advanced features like I18n.config.missing_interpolation_argument_handler.