I reckon a library performs one task well, and can be integrated in the rest of the code. A framework, no matter the size, spans multiple concerns and has opinions on how code should be structured. Does that distinction make sense?
It's as good as I've heard. But would choo qualify as a framework under this definition? AFAIK it's only concern is glue between UI and everything else, it could be mixed and matched with other frameworks/libraries".
Yeah, I think choo is definitely a framework - it has opinions on how views are nested (router), UI is glued to logic (message bus); how logic is structured (models / namespaces), and provides hooks to inspect the whole thing.
Perhaps the word framework has gotten a bit of a negative connotation over the past years, but I think by the sheer scope of the project, choo definitely qualifies as one.
__edit:__ though, as you note, internally it's a bunch of glue code between standalone packages - they could definitely be mixed and matched - the interface level also leaves a lot of room; we try to only have opinions where we deem them necessary
Hah thanks! - I'm not quite sure how it compares to knockout, I've never taken it for a spin. There's a section on many of the other frameworks if you're curious how choo distinguishes itself - https://github.com/yoshuawuyts/choo#how-does-choo-compare-to...
8 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 29.3 ms ] threadPerhaps the word framework has gotten a bit of a negative connotation over the past years, but I think by the sheer scope of the project, choo definitely qualifies as one.
__edit:__ though, as you note, internally it's a bunch of glue code between standalone packages - they could definitely be mixed and matched - the interface level also leaves a lot of room; we try to only have opinions where we deem them necessary