alexey2020
it simplifies things a lot: js enabled out-of-order streaming leads to SEO problems and frameworks usually need to come up with workarounds - detect bots and turn of streaming for that case.
With such technique no workaround is needed, less things to worry about.
Excellent!
Focusing on a particular metric for the sake of the metric - what's the point?
Let's spend a couple months, refactor an app to generate less js just to look cool in the eyes of dev community?
I also wrote a bit below: "be transparent to components and not affect their logic in any way (make components think they communicate to Backend directly)"
I met people trying to use ReactQuery with the mindset that it's a Store. The result was that they were greatly frustrated with the outcome. That mindset led them to use ReactQuery in a way it's not supposed to be used. Every now and then they wanted to directly manipulate with the Cache (the "Store" underneath ReactQuery).
That's why I find that Store-mindset very dangerous when working with such Libraries.
Better come with a mindset that there is no Store at all. Better think that "useBookQuery" is just a simple hook to fetch data. NO STORE.
>To me, “directly communicating with the backend” implies that I have to have REST calls in my components, and handle all that comes with that
This is exactly what I meant :)
I'm glad that you found the article useful. Thanks again for providing your feedback!
Very good question about the difference between `getFromStore` and `useBookQuery`.
When using `getFromStore` you have the expectation that the value is already in the Store. Someone should have already put the value there somehow.
You have also the expectation that `getFromStore` is synchronous and simply gives you nothing if the value is not there.
With `useBookQuery` you expect the value to be fetched from Server. There is no 3rd party to care about putting the value in the Store. `useBookQuery` is simply like `fetch('...')` from a Component perspective.
With libs like ReactQuery every component "simply" fetches what it needs, sort of directly communicating to the Backend. No intermediary party (like a Store)
>React is doing a lot of work with Suspense ...
Yeah, I heard about React team collaboration with libs like ReactQuery on making Suspense work with those, also on server side. But I'm not much into that Suspense topic, so decided to not mention anything about it.
>I suggest emphasizing the loading/error mechanics more strongly at the end of the article.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will think about it.
Sorry, didn't want to be picky, but the article you mentioned is not written by MarTin Fowler. And I also didn't find there many "citations" you were looking for in my article.
I'm sorry that you found my article of a little quality.
I did my best trying to analyze different approaches to Data Management, How we came to those and their problems. I illustrated those with the my own diagrams to help readers better understand the concepts.
The article is based on my 10+ years experience in the industry.
It went through many iterations of reviews and corrections.
There nothing unique in the approach I described. It builds on what libraries like ReactQuery allows to do.
I basically just tried to formalise why I see this approach as the next logical step in how we approach building UI apps.
I'm not a native English speaker and not a professional blogger. Most probably there are ways to write such an article better. I do my best learning how write better.
Having said that, I think you are not fair comparing it with your "expert-junior-evangelical" phase.
Thanks for the link to the podcast. Will definitely check this out
I tried to explain in the article why it matters.
If you are comfortable with putting all the data in a single Store and this works fine to you, then you may disregard the article.
That's a good case. This is purely UI state, right? (we don't store it on the server).
For UI state we still need to depend on prop-drilling or State Management solutions.
In the article I'm mainly talking about the Data which exist on Backend (as you can also see from all the pictures). In my experience such Server data is 90-95% of all data in most UI applications and that data contributes the most to the complexity.
Pure UI state is often just a fraction of the the whole State and is's often synchronous, so managing it should not be complex. So this kind of coupling will still exist.
To clarify, I do not say Widgets should be 100% independent. We do not achieve complete decoupling. But moving Server Data under control of Widgets gives us closer to this.
Let say, applications with lots of UI state (state that doesn't exist on Server).
Also not sure how it would work with realtime apps.
It's the same with every approach, the are always exceptions from the rule.
That said, I see the benefit of this approach for the majority of UI apps, which heavily rely on Server data.
It might create a bit more code in components, agree. I think this is a fair price for the all benefits it brings.
That said, the total amount of code might be even less (no action-creators, reducers, etc.).
Also declarative nature of the libraries makes the added code very easy to follow.
The suggested approach: - send mutation request to Backend - see the updated data being fetched and displayed by components
To me the second is much cleaner and easier to reason about
State Management: Separation of Concerns
Frontend Frameworks https://moiva.io/blog/2021-q1-state-of-js-frameworks/
State Management Libraries https://moiva.io/blog/2021-q1-report-state-management/
Testing Libraries and Frameworks https://moiva.io/blog/2021-q1-report-js-testing-libraries/
Build Tools and Module Bundlers https://moiva.io/blog/2021-q1-report-js-build-tools-bundlers...
JAMStack Frameworks + Static Site Generators https://moiva.io/blog/2021-q1-report-js-jamstack/
End-to-End testing frameworks https://moiva.io/blog/2021-q1-report-end-to-end-testing-fram...
I collected stats for 83 JavaScript libraries in Q1 2021 and used 17 metrics
With Vercel it doesn't matter even in case there is valid cached data, because Vercel doesn't execute the function in that case.
Cloudflare always executes the Function regardless of the existence of cache and it's Function's responsibility to respond with Cached data. Hence, distributed Cloudflare functions is a necessity.
Good luck with your project!
If you are talking about developer point of view, then there is no additional complexity. All the complexity is covered by the underlying platform
> what is the advantage of saving a few ms on a transaction?
one example - if a transaction consists of a few separate sequential transactions, then ms add up and might affect user experience. Also an app might need to issue lots of requests on a page load and taken that there is a limit on parallel requests (6 requests per domain), the advantage might be sensible.
Having said that, I tend to agree that many use cases are not sensible to a few ms advantage
Vercel Serverless Functions vs. Cloudflare Workers
The Kraken is out and I'm happy to discuss and answer any questions/suggestions you have
In short, what the article is about.
I rewrote Moiva completely, I put GitHub in the center of the Moiva Universe and made NPM its satellite. The architecture is agile enough for adding more satellites like Maven (Java), PIP (Python), and others.
It means that Moiva essentially became a universal tool with the ability to evaluate and compare any Software library!
Moiva.io v3: a universal tool to Evaluate, Discover and Compare software
>maybe “trendiness” is a nice metric Good suggestion, thanks! I will look into it
> - I think Contributors per year and Releases per year, could be monthly or quarterly as it's more granular and yearly change doesn't say much for libraries that are only there for 1-2 years. I need to give it another thought, might be it makes sense to change it the way you suggest
> - Also the history-back makes the url change but doesn't get reflected in the page Yes, I know about that problem, haven't had time yet to fix it - there were more important things to implement. But it's on my agenda. BTW you are first who comments about it )
> - A "clear all" button would be nice Agree. It'll be there soon.
> - It would be nice to merge some libraries, because sometimes a library changes it's name and it would be nice to merge the statistics. In the mentioned case the packages point to 2 different GitHub repositories with different owners. So I don't see what could be merged there and why it needs to be merged. Maybe you have a better example to understand the problem?
It's usually a daunting and time-consuming activity to find a better library and decide on a Tech Stack for your next project. Usually we developers skim through a countless number of resources in a search for a meaningful information. Every developer has its own favourite list of resources to look up in.
I want to change that and that's why I created Moiva.io My goal was to gather, aggregate and present valuable information in an easy and digestible way - one chart per a meaningful metric. If possible and makes sense - show a trend.
I don't want to clutter the page with useless information and useless metrics. I don't want to present any scientifically calculated information which is hard to digest and understand.
Evaluation and comparison should be dead simple.
I have big plans for that project and lots of ideas. I want to create something really useful for developers.
That's why your feedback is critical on that road.
- does the project bring any value to you? Do you think it makes sense?
- suggestions for new charts?
- suggestions for existing charts and information?