Tuxedo.js – A Framework Built on React and Flux

To all the &#x27;oh noes - another framework people&#x27; - there&#x27;s a pattern here. We&#x27;re going through a transition that isn&#x27;t complete.<p>(I might have the details wrong but here&#x27;s the flavour)<p>Backbone was a good start - Ember and later angular offered to fulfil a genuine need but after a long period of bedding in, many people have become dissatisfied with them.<p>React (and a few similar frameworks that appeared around thw same time) turned everyone&#x27;s head and seemed to offer a much better way forward. However it was only part of the jigsaw. It can be described as the V in MVC with some suggestions on the right way to add the M and C (&#x27;Flux&#x27;).<p>So - what we&#x27;re seeing now is a lot of people who&#x27;ve had time to digest React+Flux and are releasing a complete MVC package that incorporates all the lessons learnt. Consider how long we had the &quot;just use jQuery&quot; phase of front-end development. It&#x27;s just time for pendulum to swing back the other way.

It would take something truly novel to make me consider anything on top of the simple and powerful setup which is react + a custom flux. I don&#x27;t see much here except some glue that reduces flux boilerplate for actions. It also seems to be a replacement for a simple mixin that subscribes components to stores. The animations feature doesn&#x27;t seem to be too different than the standard CSSTransitionGroup. The docs say that the Tuxx abstracts away the &quot;complexity&quot; of flux but I don&#x27;t buy it.

I never miss downvoting, but all the &quot;not another framework!&quot; Posts make me do so. It&#x27;s not the framework creators fault that JavaScript is flooded with libraries, so give the framework the chance to prove itself. For JavaScript frameworks, it&#x27;s survival of the fittest.

Does Tuxedo have a plan for Isomorphic applications? I have been following the Yahoo fluxible project since it provides nice abstractions, but was designed for isomorphic apps out of the box.

Why is there is a five second animation to load a completely static home page?

The &quot;Revolutionary App Architecture&quot; looks like a big red flag. Also, that&#x27;s the first time I&#x27;ve seen a scrum master credited for an open source project.

I&#x27;m generally in favour of people releasing more frameworks and showing off work like this. We&#x27;re not being forced to use it and at the very least it allows us to see and understand other peoples thinking and approaches to new concepts like Flux.<p>With Marty.js posted the other day (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8923053" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8923053</a>) and, having spent a while looking at that, i&#x27;m interested to know if the motivations for creating the two are broadly the same? Are they taking similar approaches or are there fundamental (or subtle) differences? This is something i&#x27;m struggling to understand so would appreciate other input.

I just spent the past 5 days (re-)evaluating javascript frameworks for a project. It does feel like there are (too) many choices. However, I wonder: why are so many of these frameworks so opinionated?<p>e.g. in Tuxxedo, why would &#x27;actions&#x27; be named &#x27;add&#x27;, &#x27;remove&#x27;, &#x27;edit&#x27; or &#x27;get&#x27;. Why not following CRUD or POST&#x2F;DELETE&#x2F;PUT&#x2F;GET convention? That&#x27;s just one example.<p>It feels like the front-end developer community tends to over-engineer things these days.

All these frameworks to do MVC... Maybe it&#x27;s time browsers just natively support 2 way binding of data to DOM elements and virtual DOM diff-style batch rendering. It seems silly to relegate these features that everyone wants to a 3rd party library.

The &quot;Feature&quot; section (with links labeled &quot;Graceful Degradation&quot;, &quot;Semantic Action Creation&quot;, etc) are all 404s since they&#x27;re missing the &#x27;<a href="http://&#x27;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;&#x27;</a>.<p>The Graceful degradation link, for example, goes to <a href="http://www.tuxedojs.org/www.tuxedojs.org/docs/TuxModularity" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tuxedojs.org&#x2F;www.tuxedojs.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;TuxModularity</a> instead of <a href="http://www.tuxedojs.org/docs/TuxModularity" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tuxedojs.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;TuxModularity</a>.

The index is missing some content on Safari thanks to an error (OS X, 8.0.2, private browsing enabled):<p>&gt; InvalidCharacterError: DOM Exception 5: An invalid or illegal character was specified, such as in an XML name.<p>Seems like an useful combination, but doesn&#x27;t make me feel great when it&#x27;s got an error on a mainstream browser.

OT I haven&#x27;t looked at the lib yet (will do soon) and I know this is going to seem like a silly compliant but - on mobile the content of that page keeps moving around underneath me. It&#x27;s incredibly frustrating!

The site doesn&#x27;t work and the error console is filled with javascript errors and 404s.

Did they rename `context` as `nearestOwnerProps`? Why?

Twenty thousand lines of code to make a todo list - congrads. And crashes Emacs when opened due to that last line being tens of thousands of characters long.

Please stop.

yet another React + Flux &quot;framework&quot;. The truth is, a lot of companies who are using React and Flux already have a framework in place, they just didn&#x27;t polish it to put it out there. Nothing ground-breaking here, certainly nothing revolutionary.

Seriously? Your solution to showing syntax highlighted code snippets is images???

Please, stop this framework madness.

The javascript community seems to live by the motto &quot;A framework a day keeps the doctor away&quot;.<p>Is anyone keeping count, we must be in the hundreds by now?