I come from Vue.js to Dart world, and Angular is look for me very heavy and ugly. Is there anything more lightweight and compact for client side?
If you want something minimal, you might like MDL and over_react. Even just using the SDK's low-level DOM API gets you a long way (compared to vanilla JS).
FWIW, AngularDart is getting less and less heavy each month, and on bigger projects it doesn't seem uglier than Vue.js to me -- but I understand everyone has their own preference.
You can try the "Regoch SPA" http://www.regoch.org/single-page-app
The Regoch SPA is framework for developing single page, web applications. Created in modern Javascript with recent version of ECMAScript it's extraordinary simple and intuitive. Learn it in a few hours and build app like Angular, Vue or React.
Features
no slow compilation as in Angular, Vue or React (no such compilation
at all)
lightweight application - small app file size (~50kB only)
JS files builded with the gulp and browserify (very fast)
use CommonJS and write the code just like you are doing that in
NodeJS by using require()
no typescript, no heavy compiling, no bullshit
Model-View-Controller (MVC), intuitive app structure easy to learn
and to use
due to its small size you can build very fast and reactive mobile
apps
steep learning curve (you'll reach high programming skills rapidly
fast)
Related
I am soon beginning to develop a mobile application for my Final Year project in computer science. I am keeping my options open in regards what to use to create the application. I heard Phonegap is quite a handy API but can I still implement things such as JESS rules?
It's called Apache Cordova now, Phonegap is a hosted build system (personally not a big fan of it, maybe it has improved now... anyway).
Using Cordova, you write the cross-platform application bits using JS, not Java.
So if you want to write something similar to JESS in JS this is possible and will give you a cross platform app.
I can imagine that calculations on rules might be computationally intensive so maybe not that suited for JS. In that case note that you can write plugins for Cordova using other languages and call those from Javascript. But you will need to implement the plugin for iOS/Android/... separately using their respective toolkits.
Instead of using Cordova you can decide on Android/Java only. This should be easier and faster, albeit not cross platform. In that case, keep in mind that Dalvik (the android JVM) is not the same as stock JVM. This means that not every Java program can be run an Android without modifications.
HTH.
I am new to development and would like to develop an android application. I have previously built an application with Adobe Flash Builder 4.6 with Flex Mobile Project. I just recently noticed in 4.7 there is an option for Action Script Mobile Project.
Can someone please explain to me the difference between the two and the pros and cons to utilizing either or?
Pros:
Creating a Flex mobile project is easier (use Flex 4.6 with design mode to rapidly prototype, 4.7 to develop) and visually let's you drag and drop
You can use data binding and other convieniant built in tools
Like anything else, there's good and bad about using the Flex mobile project as oppose to a complete ActionScript based solution. Mainly, it's a lot easier to customize your preloadeder, your splash screen and other features similar to tht like customizing how your application handles screen. Below is a couple pros and cons of using the Flex mobile version instead of ActionScript.
Cons:
Slower performance
Can't use Adobe Scout, it's an awesome tool for real time benchmarking and profiling. Using the built in one is ok but it doesn't give you theamazing information that Scout provides.
My advice: if you're savvy enough to do everything in ActionScript, then definitely create an ActionScript project, your users will love you for it. Plus, it's not that much harder and it lets you have a myriad of additional control over your components. Also, you don't have to deal with the overhead that comes with data binding ( it generates event listeners, get and set methods and you can create much more efficient ones on your own). There are a number of other things that benefit you by creating an ActionScript version like refactoring and better subversion but those are more of incentives than anything else.
If you plan on making use of the declarative mark-up, built in UI components, and data binding which the Flex framework provides then you should probably start with a Flex Mobile Project. The downside to this approach is that the additional scaffolding of the Flex framework will incur a slight performance hit and will increase the over-all file size of your project.
On the other hand, if performance is critical and you don't need the declarative markup, built in UI components, or data binding provided by the Flex framework, then you should start with a pure ActionScript mobile project. Really simple applications, games, or applications with highly customised UIs would be examples of projects for which a pure ActionScript approach might be more suitable.
FYI, you can use Adobe Scout on Flex apps. Apache Flex now supports advanced Telemetry.
You can also add advanced telemetry to any SWF with the SWF Scout Enabler.
Libgdx is focused mainly on Android and is written in java but apparently it can run apps on the browser(webGL?). Three.js is a very impressive javascript 3D library which uses WebGL(or 2d canvas) as well for rendering.
So far I haven't seen any comparisons between this two since they have different focuses, but I would like to know the differences, what can one library do that the other one can not.
I don't think I'm too qualified to talk about Three.js, but I have used libGDX for many projects of mine and know its disadvantages when it comes to WebGL (the browser export).
The first factors to consider is what language you are used to, Three.js uses JavaScript and libGDX uses Java. And although libGDX exports to WebGL, it's only because it uses GWT, you still do the coding in Java.
LibGDX is specialized (as you said) in mobile and (to an extent) desktop applications. If you're goal is to create something that works on the web as well as mobile and desktop then libGDX should be considered. However, if you only wish to program things for the web, then I would really consider just doing Three.js for reasons I will explain later.
LibGDX is made mainly for game development, so if the application you're making is a game, you could consider libGDX, as it makes game programming in 3D nice and easy (and you'll be able to port it to multiple platforms, not only web, but mobile and desktop). But if you're making something else, Three.js may be a better option.
If your platform for distribution is going to be your web version I would suggest sticking with Three.js, because libGDX isn't that good for its WebGL export. One of the biggest issues (which is solvable, but a pain to deal with) is that libGDX does not prevent default browser keys from being used. However, if you do choose to use libGDX, make sure you take a look at this to fix that problem (more or less).
For the most part, if you're main platform is going to be web you'll want to program in a language that is meant for web development. If you program in JavaScript using the Three.js framework the code will be cleaner and faster to run. Meanwhile, if you use libGDX it essentially transforms Java code into JavaScript coding making it inefficient and bulky and will contain many lines of JavaScript code that are either useless or can be simplified. It's not an issue with libGDX (or rather GWT) itself, but rather just something that cannot be avoided when automating programming language translation. To give you an example, using the programming language Haxe, if you compile a HelloWorld Haxe to C++ it contains a bunch of unnecessary variables and methods (in the C++ source code) that you could just get rid of. Same in this case.
So in the end it depends on what you're aiming for. If you plan on sticking with just the web version use Three.js, otherwise libGDX should be considered.
Up to now I've always used PHP with or without a framework but a month ago I decided to start something new: Ruby and Rails, I found them quite easy and similar to PHP and some PHP frameworks in how they works but using a simpler syntax and many other advantages.
Some days ago I started reading about Node.js, Node.js vs Rails, "why node.js is better"...
I'm a bit confused but my objective is to learn something modern that will not become obsolete in a few months so:
What are the main differences between Rails/Ruby and Node.js and a framework based on it like Express.js (except that one is written in JS and the other in Ruby)?
What are the main advantages/disadvantages of using Node.js and framework based on it instead of a Ruby based solution like Rails?
Thanks!
There aren't enough differences between Node.js and Rails for it to practically matter.
A lot of what Node.js can do can be pulled off in Rails with things like EventMachine and Pusher. So unless you are really familiar with Rails' limitations, and know you'll be pushing the boundaries, you'd be hard pressed to make something a seasoned Rails developer couldn't do.
Having built apps in Node and Express I can say that they alone aren't enough to make a sexy application. They can seem just as old and stale if you don't have an outstanding frontend UI to facilitate the backend possibilities. Instead of comparing backend servers, I think the real future of doing amazing things is in front-end JavaScript frameworks like Backbone.js that use Express/Rails/Node.js on the backend.
I have chosen to go in the direction of Backbone.js with Rails as my backend API server. Because it's so easy to rapidly create a very nice RESTful backend server in Rails. Rails also makes working with CoffeeScript and precompiling/organizing Backbone code a breeze. There are already decent Backbone.js gems out there for Rails.
The Rails core is also able to acknowledge and embrace the fact that frontend JS MVCs are logically a good next step, and they have been working to strengthen the bond between the two. For those same reasons they have also worked to make Rails an even better API server so that it can work with frontend JS easier. Node.js and Express aren't putting as much effort to coordinate with frontend JavaScript MVCs as the Rails community is.
Being good with a JavaScript frontend MVC and Rails as a backend makes you also great for both worlds in terms of getting a job. You will easily be able to hop onto a Node.js project and add value to that team with your superior frontend experience, and you can also roll with the punches on a Ruby on Rails team and add value to them as well.
As official Node.js website explains it:
Node.js is a platform built on Chrome's JavaScript runtime for easily building fast, scalable network applications. Node.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight and efficient, perfect for data-intensive real-time applications that run across distributed devices.
On the other hand Ruby on Rails official website says:
Ruby on Rails is an open-source web framework that's optimized for programmer happiness and sustainable productivity. It lets you write beautiful code by favoring convention over configuration.
Given this I guess that it is more appropriate to compare Ruby and Node.js, but even this is not quite right given that Ruby is programming language and Node.js is NOT. You could probably compare JavaScript with Ruby but I guess that is not what you meant to ask with this question :)
So, for me, key point in understanding what Node.js truly tries to accomplish is well described on Node.js about page. Key Node.js idea (for me) is described in this sentences:
Node is similar in design to and influenced by systems like Ruby's Event Machine or Python's Twisted. Node takes the event model a bit further—it presents the event loop as a language construct instead of as a library. In other systems there is always a blocking call to start the event-loop. Typically one defines behavior through callbacks at the beginning of a script and at the end starts a server through a blocking call like EventMachine::run(). In Node there is no such start-the-event-loop call. Node simply enters the event loop after executing the input script. Node exits the event loop when there are no more callbacks to perform. This behavior is like browser javascript—the event loop is hidden from the user.
What this should enable you, is that you should be able to easily write highly concurrent programs without even thinking about concurrency using JavaScript syntax and callback functions as basic concurrent runnable units.
Your fear that either Rails or Node.js will be gone in a week is unfounded. Rails has a large community and will be around for a very long time even though currently (early 2012) it's getting a bit of hate thrown its way. Node.js is just getting started and has so much attention I don't think it will have any problems getting to the Rails level some day.
That said I've been evaluating Node.js and Rails as options for a project and the reasons I choose Node.js over Rails are:
"The Rails Way" - In my (admittedly limited) experience with Rails it really seems like you either do it the Rails way or you are going to be in for a world of pain. A big part of the Rails way is to use the ActiveRecord model. The advantage of this is that there are a lot of gems that work with your code happily because they know you'll be using ActiveRecord. The disadvantage is you are mixing your data access & model. I am not a fan of this idea so the Rails way for me still seems a bit.. off.
JavaScript is a key part of client side web development and the idea of using it on the client and server is interesting. I'm not super strong at JavaScript and I can't imagine a better way to get better then to have to use it everywhere.
My project has real time communication needs which while I'm sure can be done in Rails there seems to be quite a bit of positive mention on Nodes ability to handle this with socket.io being the front runner option.
At the end of the day no matter which you choose you will have a great time & learn a ton of new stuff that will change how you write code. If you're not on a big time crunch I'd recommend building a small project management tool in both and see which you prefer.
Either way.. Good Luck!
2 things - performance & productivity.
Performance (more details here)
(source: jslang.info)
Productivity (how fast you can build that app)
Ruby on Rails is specialized and highly productive tool for creating so called Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications (99% of internet sites are such apps). In my subjective judgement and experience in this area Rails about 2-4 times more productive than node.js or express.js.
For Web 3.0 apps (realtime things, client-side MVC, etc.) this isn't true, RoR doesn't keep its advantage there.
So choice depends on use case and priorities.
I know a lot more about Node.js than I do about Ruby. That being said, Ruby is much more widely adopted. It is currently a very hot skill to have in the work place. Some may argue with me on this but I think that Node.js is still "under development" and will be for a little bit longer. It has a lot of promise but just hasn't been adopted by many companies and projects yet.
I have little experience with ruby itself. I am going to hire somebody to write a web based application and I wanted it to be written in RoR but I was recommend mono. I guess because they like mono and because they think the RoR is slow.
The whole application would be some kind of social media meta management tool. There will be front end web based part and then back end doing the 'real stuff'.
I have no experience with mono at all and I am not experienced enough to comfortably say that RoR is the best choice.
I understood that if RoR is configured properly it could be pretty fast. I read that RoR has some troubles with scalability. I will start the application small and if it's successful I need to scale it up.
What would you recommend?
in the light of
performance
scalability
easiness to test
easiness to maintain, develop code/project
( I like ruby but I am not going to be the developer myself. I prefer to choose the 'better' option if there is such answer to that question)
please feel free to suggest anything else ...
If you are not going to write it yourself, you may want to go with what the person who will write it is most comfortable with.
Full disclosure: I have developed several sites now using Mono and I love it. I have used Ruby-on-Rails but not for anything nearly as big as what I have done in Mono. Keep that in mind.
Quick answer: In the greater scheme of things, Ruby-on-Rails and ASP.NET MVC have more in common than not. My choice would be ASP.NET MVC on Mono but I doubt you would regret choosing either.
Architecture: If you want one way of doing it out of the box, choose Ruby-on-Rails. If you want to be able to choose what you feel are the best-of-the-best technologies from a range of choices, choose .NET (Mono).
Ruby-on-Rails is more of a turn-key solution in that it provides a standard way of doing pretty much everything you need out of the box. .NET (Mono) offers a lot more power (my opinion let's say) but there are a lot of different pieces to choose from and you have to choose a technology stack yourself. As an example, RoR has a standard way of accessing databases while .NET Mono let/force you to choose from a dozen different ways to do that.
Mono and .NET generally have a little better separation of concerns so the purist in you might like that. If not, you actually find the roll-up-your sleeves and get it done attitude of Ruby more to your liking.
Performance and Scalability: This should clearly go to .NET and Mono. In fact, I believe the fastest way to run Ruby-on-Rails is to use IronRuby to run it on .NET. StackOverflow is written in ASP.NET MVC and, given the amount of traffic, it obviously performs great. Proof is in the pudding. That said, the performance bottleneck will probably not be your choice of framework.
Testing: Old style ASP.NET (now called WebForms) is considered pretty hard to test. The newer ASP.NET MVC was designed to be easy to test and is similar to RoR. One major factor is that in Mono you will probably be using a statically typed language (like C#) while Ruby is of course a dynamically typed language. You have to write more tests in a dynamic language (because the compiler/interpreter will not catch type problems) but it can also be easier to write tests if you are not fighting the compiler. I think it is a matter of taste and style (I like static) but this is a major factor in answering this question.
Of course, since .NET/Mono is a multi-language platform, you could always write your ASP.NET MVC tests in a dynamic language. You could even do it in Ruby (IronRuby). Perhaps that would be the best of both worlds (static checking on your real code and flexible dynamism in your tests). I have considered doing this myself using IronPython for tests.
Maintenance and development: This is a tough one. It depends what you are writing, what third-party libraries you might need, and what tools you are going to use. I would say that RoR is probably the more advanced MVC framework. My own thoughts are that Ruby-on-Rails is probably a shade easier to write but a little bit harder to maintain.
Community: I like the Ruby community more than the .NET one but I think I like the Mono one the best. That makes it a little confusing. The core Mono guys (like Michael Hutchinson that answered here) are simply awesome. I really like MonoDevelop as a tool (IDE) as well. It just keeps getting better and better. Michael, thank you for Git support if you had anything to do with that. :-)
Tools: If you are writing for Mono you can use the whole universe of .NET tools (VisualStudio, ReSharper, Reflector, etc) so that is pretty hard to beat. That is assuming you develop on Windows of course. On Linux or Mac the tool of choice for Mono would be MonoDevelop. It supports version control, a software debugger, and NUnit tests right in the IDE and is completely cross-platform.
It seems like a lot of Ruby folks just use a simple text editor. This may just be because an IDE just does not have as much to offer a dynamic language as it does a static one. Here is a SO question on what people like for Ruby:
What Ruby IDE do you prefer?
EDIT: Just to make things confusing...there is another MVC framework for .NET/Mono that is even more like Ruby-on-Rails; MonoRail even has an implementation of ActiveRecord. MonoRail has actually been around longer than ASP.NET MVC but I would stick with ASP.NET MVC these days as that is where the future lies. ASP.NET MVC is open source by the way and ships with Mono out of the box (the actual Microsoft code).
I can speak more to Rails than Mono. RoR is pretty scalable these days with all of the cloud hosting services available. Web applications query data and render web pages using that data, which really isn't that big of a deal. Most performance issues are caused by database and schema design issues, not the web framework. Typically, database response times dwarf other portions of server processing. RoR is also very easy to test. Testing is a more natural part of development than in other languages that I use. When I started RoR programming I was used to the much more structured world of Java, and the more dynamic Rails won me over for web development.
Firstly, I work on MonoDevelop, a crossplatform IDE for Mono (including ASP.NET & ASP.NET MVC), so feel free to consider my answer biased, but hopefully it will be helpful anyway.
Performance: a decent JIT compiler (Mono) should be much faster than an interpreter (Ruby). But it depends on the programmer's skill too - well-written Ruby could be faster than really badly written C#. The libraries and database and caching mechanisms you use will be a big factor too, but these aren't fundamental to the languages/frameworks.
Scalability: AFAIK there is no magic bullet for web app scalability, and although I don't have practical experience in this field, here's some info I've picked up. It really depends on your database usage, how your session state is stored, and how caching is implemented. This isn't really fundamental to either framework - once you start scaling to multiple machines, you'll probably have many machines/processes for database servers, cache servers, message queues, frontends, servers for static content, etc. Likely only the frontends will be ASP.NET or ROR, and if they're stateless, you can simply clone them and handle the scalability problems on the backend.
Testing: I can't speak for Ruby, but ASP.NET MVC (but not vanilla ASP.NET) was designed to be easily testable using .NET testing tools such as NUnit (Mono's own unit tests use NUnit).
Maintenance and development: Again, I can't really speak for Ruby, but it's pretty much a given that it will be easiest to develop (at least initially) in the language & framework that the developer already has experience with. Also, .NET has some amazing development tools on Windows - Visual Studio, ReSharper, etc. - and there's a huge pool of experienced C# and ASP.NET developers you can hire, though few of them will know Linux/Mono.
Also, StackOverflow uses ASP.NET MVC :)
To introduce a little levity...
How about DOS on Dope: the last MVC web framework you will ever need?
There are of course a dizzying array of choices but another nice alternative is Django.
It is basically Ruby-on-Rails for Python so most of the comparisons of RoR vs. ASP.NET MVC would apply. Depending on what kind of site you are building, the really interesting feature of Django is the automatic admin interface.
If you need to be up and running quickly, I would go for RoR. Scaling rails is becoming easier with time and you have a big range of ruby runtime environments to choose from MRI 1.8, 1.9, REE 1.8, JRuby (run on java VM), Rubinius.
ASP.NET MVC is nice, but I still think it has some way to go before it offers the same speed of development as RoR.