Alternatives to Ampersand.js

Our whole Node.js backend stack consists of the following tools:

• Lerna as a tool for multi package and multi repository management
• npm as package manager
• NestJS as Node.js framework
• TypeScript as programming language
• ExpressJS as web server
• Swagger UI for visualizing and interacting with the API’s resources
• Postman as a tool for API development
• TypeORM as object relational mapping layer
• JSON Web Token for access token management

The main reason we have chosen Node.js over PHP is related to the following artifacts:

• Made for the web and widely in use: Node.js is a software platform for developing server-side network services. Well-known projects that rely on Node.js include the blogging software Ghost, the project management tool Trello and the operating system WebOS. Node.js requires the JavaScript runtime environment V8, which was specially developed by Google for the popular Chrome browser. This guarantees a very resource-saving architecture, which qualifies Node.js especially for the operation of a web server. Ryan Dahl, the developer of Node.js, released the first stable version on May 27, 2009. He developed Node.js out of dissatisfaction with the possibilities that JavaScript offered at the time. The basic functionality of Node.js has been mapped with JavaScript since the first version, which can be expanded with a large number of different modules. The current package managers (npm or Yarn) for Node.js know more than 1,000,000 of these modules.
• Fast server-side solutions: Node.js adopts the JavaScript "event-loop" to create non-blocking I/O applications that conveniently serve simultaneous events. With the standard available asynchronous processing within JavaScript/TypeScript, highly scalable, server-side solutions can be realized. The efficient use of the CPU and the RAM is maximized and more simultaneous requests can be processed than with conventional multi-thread servers.
• A language along the entire stack: Widely used frameworks such as React or AngularJS or Vue.js, which we prefer, are written in JavaScript/TypeScript. If Node.js is now used on the server side, you can use all the advantages of a uniform script language throughout the entire application development. The same language in the back- and frontend simplifies the maintenance of the application and also the coordination within the development team.
• Flexibility: Node.js sets very few strict dependencies, rules and guidelines and thus grants a high degree of flexibility in application development. There are no strict conventions so that the appropriate architecture, design structures, modules and features can be freely selected for the development.

Our whole Vue.js frontend stack (incl. SSR) consists of the following tools:

• Nuxt.js consisting of Vue CLI, Vue Router, vuex, Webpack and Sass (Bundler for HTML5, CSS 3), Babel (Transpiler for JavaScript),
• Vue Styleguidist as our style guide and pool of developed Vue.js components
• Vuetify as Material Component Framework (for fast app development)
• TypeScript as programming language
• Apollo / GraphQL (incl. GraphiQL) for data access layer (https://apollo.vuejs.org/)
• ESLint, TSLint and Prettier for coding style and code analyzes
• Jest as testing framework
• Google Fonts and Font Awesome for typography and icon toolkit
• NativeScript-Vue for mobile development

The main reason we have chosen Vue.js over React and AngularJS is related to the following artifacts:

• Empowered HTML. Vue.js has many similar approaches with Angular. This helps to optimize HTML blocks handling with the use of different components.
• Detailed documentation. Vue.js has very good documentation which can fasten learning curve for developers.
• Adaptability. It provides a rapid switching period from other frameworks. It has similarities with Angular and React in terms of design and architecture.
• Awesome integration. Vue.js can be used for both building single-page applications and more difficult web interfaces of apps. Smaller interactive parts can be easily integrated into the existing infrastructure with no negative effect on the entire system.
• Large scaling. Vue.js can help to develop pretty large reusable templates.
• Tiny size. Vue.js weights around 20KB keeping its speed and flexibility. It allows reaching much better performance in comparison to other frameworks.

I've used both Vue.js and React and I would stick with React. I know that Vue.js seems easier to write and its much faster to pick up however as you mentioned above React has way more ready made components you can just plugin, and the community for React is very big.

It might be a bit more of a steep learning curve for your friend to learn React over Vue.js but I think in the long run its the better option.

I find using Vue.js to be easier (more concise / less boilerplate) and more intuitive than writing React. However, there are a lot more readily available React components that I can just plug into my projects. I'm debating whether to use Vue.js or React for an upcoming project that I'm going to use to help teach a friend how to build an interactive frontend. Which would you recommend I use?

The front end for Heap begun to grow unwieldy. The original jQuery pieces became difficult to maintain and scale, and a decision was made to introduce Backbone.js, Marionette, and TypeScript. Ultimately this ended up being a “detour” in the search for a scalable and maintainable front-end solution. The system did allow for developers to reuse components efficiently, but adding features was a difficult process, and it eventually became a bottleneck in advancing the product.

Today, the Heap product consists primarily of a customer-facing dashboard powered by React, MobX, and TypeScript on the front end. We wrote our migration to React and MobX in detail last year here.

#JavascriptUiLibraries #Libraries #JavascriptMvcFrameworks #TemplatingLanguagesExtensions

We are in the middle of a change of the stack on the front end. So we used Backbone.js with Marionette. Then we also created our own implementation of a Flux kind of flow. We call it eb-flux. We have worked with Marionette for a long time. Then at some point we start evolving and end up having a kind of Redux.js-style architecture, but with Marionette.

But then maybe one and a half years ago, we started moving into React and that's why we created the Eventbrite design system. It's a really nice project that probably could be open sourced. It's a library of components for our React components.

With the help of that library, we are building our new stack with React and sometimes Redux when it's necessary.

When Redash was created 5 years ago we chose AngularJS as our frontend framework, but as AngularJS was replaced by Angular 2 we had to make a new choice. We decided that we won't migrate to Angular, but to either React or Vue.js. Eventually we decided to migrate to React for the following reasons:

1. Many in our community are already using React internally and will be able to contribute.
2. Using react2angular we can do the migration gradually over time instead of having to invest in a big rewrite while halting feature development.

So far the gradual strategy pays off and in the last 3 major releases we already shipped React code in the Angular.js application.

From my experience of the early startup world, a majority of companies these days use Node.js. Python and Go are the next biggest languages, but significantly smaller than Node.

However, if you're having trouble with the front end aspect of Django, using Node probably won't make that easier for you. You'll have a lot more options between front end frameworks (React, Vue.js, Angular 2) , but they'll definitely take more time to learn than Django's templating system.

Think about whether you want to focus on front end or back end for now, and make a decision from there.

Simple controls over complex technologies, as we put it, wouldn't be possible without neat UIs for our user areas including start page, dashboard, settings, and docs.

Initially, there was Django. Back in 2011, considering our Python-centric approach, that was the best choice. Later, we realized we needed to iterate on our website more quickly. And this led us to detaching Django from our front end. That was when we decided to build an SPA.

For building user interfaces, we're currently using React as it provided the fastest rendering back when we were building our toolkit. It’s worth mentioning Uploadcare is not a front-end-focused SPA: we aren’t running at high levels of complexity. If it were, we’d go with Ember.js.

However, there's a chance we will shift to the faster Preact, with its motto of using as little code as possible, and because it makes more use of browser APIs. One of our future tasks for our front end is to configure our Webpack bundler to split up the code for different site sections. For styles, we use PostCSS along with its plugins such as cssnano which minifies all the code.

All that allows us to provide a great user experience and quickly implement changes where they are needed with as little code as possible.

Choosing a framework be it angular, react, ember or vue is personal preference. I would say start with each and build something that utilise state management (todo list perhaps?) and see which style you are comfortable with.

If you wants to get employed, React is a wiser choice. It also helps you build native mobile apps with react-native . If you are building enterprise app with alot of client-side data, nothing beats Ember.js ember-data.

If you are like me who is prototyping light-weight startup and would like to move fast and missing your first front-end learning (angular 1), go with Vue.js . NativeScript-Vue is the binding to build mobile native apps with it.

At Beamery we had a large, AngularJS app, built over several years. Our clients were happy, but we were not. We had several problems: Building new features was slow. AngularJS doesn’t scale nicely. Features clash with each other. Isolation doesn’t come as standard, you have to work hard to keep features separate. It takes time to get it right. #Hiring was hard, for all the reasons listed above. The app was slower than it needed to be because AngularJS was never built for speed. We wanted to render half a million contacts, and Angular was fighting us all the way.

As time went by it become harder to find developers who would willingly choose AngularJS over React Angular 2 , Vue.js , Aurelia or Polymer .

So we faced a choice. We could throw it all away and start again, we could upgrade to Angular 5, or the awesome option - we could use micro frontends. We chose the awesome option.

The front end for Heap begun to grow unwieldy. The original jQuery pieces became difficult to maintain and scale, and a decision was made to introduce Backbone.js, Marionette, and TypeScript. Ultimately this ended up being a “detour” in the search for a scalable and maintainable front-end solution. The system did allow for developers to reuse components efficiently, but adding features was a difficult process, and it eventually became a bottleneck in advancing the product.

Today, the Heap product consists primarily of a customer-facing dashboard powered by React, MobX, and TypeScript on the front end. We wrote our migration to React and MobX in detail last year here.

#JavascriptUiLibraries #Libraries #JavascriptMvcFrameworks #TemplatingLanguagesExtensions

We are in the middle of a change of the stack on the front end. So we used Backbone.js with Marionette. Then we also created our own implementation of a Flux kind of flow. We call it eb-flux. We have worked with Marionette for a long time. Then at some point we start evolving and end up having a kind of Redux.js-style architecture, but with Marionette.

But then maybe one and a half years ago, we started moving into React and that's why we created the Eventbrite design system. It's a really nice project that probably could be open sourced. It's a library of components for our React components.

With the help of that library, we are building our new stack with React and sometimes Redux when it's necessary.