Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
Hein Rutjes
@IjzerenHein
And, hello everyone here in Gitter chat :)
Timothy
@timfam
-Hi @IjzerenHein good to see you here, your components made all the difference in older version
Hein Rutjes
@IjzerenHein
Thanks, good to hear that @timfam
Curious, what have you guys build so far with the new engine, does anyone have demos?
Timothy
@timfam
Kind of waiting on @gadicc for famous-views and he was partially waiting on components from famous.org . So things kind of slowed to a crawl :(
Gadi Cohen
@gadicc
cc: @Neobii
Hein Rutjes
@IjzerenHein
😢
Gadi Cohen
@gadicc
@IjzerenHein, yeah, very sad indeed. I'll still be watching infamous closely and might take a bash at my own minimalist implementation. famous-views is still the way I'd like to build my app, but I have to take good business decisions too.
Adam
@Neobii
Saw that gadi, thanks for telling us what's up and taking on the helm of this meteor implementation
Gadi Cohen
@gadicc
I hope to be involved in other cool things in the future too :)
It was a good run!
Big thanks again to everyone who got involved.
Adam
@Neobii
What do you think about three
Pierre-Eric Marchandet
@PEM--
I'm seriously pissed about Famo.us's behavior. @gadicc, thank you very much for everything you've done and bring to us, to me. I hope that our roads will cross again.
Tony Alves
@talves
@gadicc if you want to start a minimalist implementation, can you reach out to me to discuss. I would love to see a minimalist architecture structure for the infamous project. This would include the build and/or ability to separate out the pieces needed or allow for a shell build that would make it really easy for other libraries to consume.
Adam
@Neobii
That's the spirit
Tony Alves
@talves
I also have to decide how much time I am going to dedicate to the tasks needed to make a working solution for famous-views
I have already made an ES6 refactor of the infamous fork and will be pushing very soon to a new branch that will be a proposal for the infamous/master branch.
Tony Alves
@talves
Infamous will be written in ES6 as the main goal, but will maintain a CommonJS, AMD optional build using babel from the main code base. We will decide if those will be released as npm packages.
Timothy
@timfam
@talves infamous should concentrate on the engine and perhaps community can contribute components
Gadi Cohen
@gadicc

@Neobii, re Three.js - it's the bees knees. The Famous GL stuff would never have reached that level. There's some discussion now for infamous to use ThreeJS for the fork, with a famous'ish API... this could be pretty awesome. (Disclaimer: I have very little GL experience personally but I do read :)).

@PEM-- , yeah, it's a great pity, but if nothing else, they did show us what's possible. The discussion now in the infamous channel is quite inspiring!

@talves, will be very happy to discuss (we'll chat more in private or in infamous group). Basic idea is just to mess around first as an experiment.. I'm a stickler for performance and good design so I'm actually excited to give it a bash, but don't at this stage want to pre-commit to anything big :)

famous-views in general shouldn't have very big requirements. it's pretty big now but that was mostly to deal with inadequacies in famous. i think a lot of famous-views stuff is better suited for the engine level, and that it should be super easy to write integrations for e.g. blaze (meteor), react, angular, etc, with a similar structure. these integrations should be fairly thin, simply making sensible use of the engine API.

very happy with ES6 base, babel, npm, etc :)

@timfam, I think we need an approach in the middle. I think one of the biggest problems with mixed mode was the approach that "we've made the ultimate engine, go build stuff with it". unfortunately since the team itself only made cool single-view demos and nothing "real", the engine was grossly inadequate for building real things. so I think the engine team needs to build some basic components to ensure real world adequacy... once a solid foundation is there of course the community to make more cool stuff.
Darryl Hawkinberry
@dhawkinb
whats the simplest way to integrate touch w/ famous views?
also what is infamous
Tony Alves
@talves
@dhawkinb infamous is the community fork of famous. The community is reviewing the code to determine whether famous is viable or not
famous views is being put on permanent hold for now.
Darryl Hawkinberry
@dhawkinb
kk, i got question happy and just re-read up a bit and found out what happened
not too surprised
Darryl Hawkinberry
@dhawkinb
disappointing really, i can't find any alternatives to using famous
Tony Alves
@talves
yep, bummer
Joe Pea
@trusktr

@gadicc

blaze (meteor), react, angular, etc, with a similar structure. these integrations should be fairly thin, simply making sensible use of the engine API.

That's what I was thinking too, but it's a lot more work to go and make each integration afterwords. React, on the other hand (especially now that it's officially supported by Meteor) is looking really nice. You guys (cc @talves) should experiment with react-famous a little if you haven't yet. It's really nice (try my fork for now, at npmjs.com/reacfamo, with plans to merge with @pilwon when ready).

What I've been doing on my latest two projects is just writing components in react-famous.
It's so nice.
I honestly don't see anything replacing React any time soon.
Angular 2 might have a shot, but I'm not so sure yet.
Gadi Cohen
@gadicc

@dhawkinb:

disappointing really, i can't find any alternatives to using famous

A lot of us felt the same way and there is some really interesting stuff happening in https://gitter.im/infamous/engine! So don't dispare yet :>

@trusktr, re integrations/react, I think the main thing is to not force something on users. We can provide an official react integration, that we support. That level of abstraction will mean that anyone else who is keen can quickly copy that code and create an integration layer for framework of their choice.

Sunny Gonnabathula
@sunny-g
What does you guys think of Velocity.js or GSAP? Is famo.us really that much better than these?
Joe Pea
@trusktr
@gadicc Let's do it. UI components written directly on top of our new engine, then we can make interfaces for React, Angular, etc.
@sunny-g Veolcity.js and GSAP aren't rendering engines. They just provide tweening libraries, for the most part.
For example, you can take Veolcity.js and use it to animate the properties of a Three.js WebGL object, or to animate the CSS properties of a normal DOM element.
Three.js and Famous both supply methods of rendering things in DOM or WebGL. Famous has added tools for animating properties (f.e. the Transitionable class) in a similar fashion to Velocity.js.
Velocity.js doesn't have an API for you to draw WebGL objects or DOM elements and move them in 3D space.
Sunny Gonnabathula
@sunny-g
@trusktr I guess I get the distinction, but then what I must mean is what are the practical differences? I feel like with Famo.us, you need every component rendered in their engine (and if the app is big enough, their framework or something like meteor-famous-views). With velocity or gsap, it would seem then that I can use whatever framework I want and just sprinkle in the animation on particular elements/components
Joe Pea
@trusktr
@sunny-g Yes, that's true. You can apply Velocity.js to whatever you want, Famous components, Three.js components, normal DOM components, etc. You can mix and match as desired. I personally want to work with a single, unified engine though, but you definitely don't have to.
I've been loving react-famous (but I'll be switching to react-motor soon, with a similar API, but using github.com/infamous/motor as a replacement for Famous but with a very similar API so that migration is minimal).
Sunny Gonnabathula
@sunny-g
Hmm what's I thought he infamous fork was famous-engine, not motor?
Adam
@Neobii
@gadicc hey I have an app that still uses this, I sent a pr request for an update so it works with 1.4. Would you check it over and merge :D?
Punita Ojha
@punitaojha
This message was deleted