No framework example

[tastejs]

No framework example

[chrisjacob]

+1

[addyosmani]

Hmm. I think this would be trivial to put together but I would question it's value - eg. If we demonstrated that jQuery templates, jQuery and localStorage could be used to craft the same solution, sure people would see how to create an MVC-free example, but I see the real benefit of this project being a comparison between architecture pattern implementations. Could you tell me a little more about why you think this issue should be tackled? :)

[dnagir]

It's value would be ability to compare non-MVC project, to MVC. Which many people complain about.
This issue should be tackled because it will give an overview and provide benefits of using a framework rather than reinventing the wheel.

[corroded]

I also think this is a good idea. While not necessarily an excellent analogy, it does come close to this commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miC1VZ9UVCQ

Basically, you compare something that is "not good" to something that is. BUT, don't get me wrong. I do love plain JS but as I said it's for a lack of a better example. Anyway, we could probably just show a comparison of "vanilla js and/or jquery templates VS MVC frameworks" kind of thing, right?

[addyosmani]

Hmm. Okay. I can see where that might be useful. I think it would be of benefit to get some focus on what we'd like to produce for this. A pure JavaScript version? A pure jQuery version?. I mean at the end of the day, it's really just an editable list that's being updated with new elements so there's quite a lot that could be done.

If we do end up working on some of these examples, is there a particular templating engine that you'd like to see used? Not sure if people are aware but the jQuery tmpl plugin has been deprecated. We've moved it over to jQuery UI and it's going to exist there in the near future onwards.

[dnagir]

I think using jQuery would be a good example. Maybe even with no templating engine as example is relatively simple.
The templating doesn't really matter IMO.

The only addition would be to use cross browser store.js for local storage.

[chrisjacob]

+1 for No template engine.

+1 for vanilla JS version - this it would be a insightful & good as a
teaching reference - there are not many "current" pure javascript examples
out there.

On 10 October 2011 00:03, Dmytrii Nagirniak <
[email protected]>wrote:

I think using jQuery would be a good example. Maybe even with no templating
engine as example is relatively simple.
The templating doesn't really matter IMO.

The only addition would be to use cross browser store.js for local storage.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#10 (comment)

[dnagir]

I don't think it should be "poor" JavaScript. It is just not realistic. If you write anything you will use libraries.
So I guess taking jQuery as a baseline is a good choice.

[chrisjacob]

I would be happy with either vanilla or jquery...

I just think it would be interesting to see vanilla. It's less realistic in terms of what most people would use to get the job done. I use jQuery, but it's nice to not pigeon hole everyone into using jQuery. Plain old JavaScript would highlight not only why you need a framework, but also why you probably need a JS library.

This project is probably more focused on business comparisons between frameworks... in which case a jQuery example is probably more worth the investment. But if considering the project as a novice javascript developer's intro to frameworks then I like the idea of a vanilla example .... coz, you know, it's at the heart of what we're all doing.

[corroded]

One little problem I just realized would be that a plain js example would either be:

• time consuming
  OR
• dirty...unless you will create your own "mini-framework" for the methods needed etc...which in turn will make it..time consuming.

[addyosmani]

For plain JavaScript, it's actually relatively easy to code up
something that would work but you probably would end up recommending
another JS template engine to use alongside it were you opting to go
down that path.

I think going for the jQuery version makes the most sense for now.

On 10/10/11, Eumir Gaspar
[email protected]
wrote:

One little problem I just realized would be that a plain js example would
either be:

• time consuming
  OR
• dirty...unless you will create your own "mini-framework" for the methods
  needed etc...which in turn will make it..time consuming.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#10 (comment)

Addy Osmani

Developer at Aol | jQuery Core [Bug Triage/Docs/Learning site] teams member
Blogger at: http://addyosmani.com

[addyosmani]

A jQuery-only version has been merged and will be a part of TodoMVC 0.3.

[dnagir]

Well done. Thanks a lot.

[ffesseler]

Dunno if you're interested but I coded up a vanilla JS version of the application. No MVC, no framework, no third party libs, just plain JS version

[addyosmani]

@ffesseler Definitely. If you'd like to file a PR, I'd be happy to take a look at it :)