Introducing Aurelia

No pun intended against Aurelia, but this reminds me...<p><a href="https://twitter.com/iamdevloper/status/540481335362875392" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;iamdevloper&#x2F;status&#x2F;540481335362875392</a><p>&quot;I think I&#x27;ve had milk last longer than some JavaScript frameworks.&quot;

If I read&#x2F;watched correctly, what&#x27;s really different about this framework is:<p>1. Large focus on ES6&#x2F;ES7<p>2. JSPM<p>3. MVVM as made popular by libraries like KnockoutJS (which Durandal was built upon).<p>I think this is awesome. While I don&#x27;t plan on rewriting an app I&#x27;m already working on in it, I think the interface to the framework is very very simple (which is refreshing), due in large part to the tight ES6 integration.<p>Also, I think MVVM is preferable to MVC (mostly because &quot;controllers&quot; are an overloaded term and end up being VMs anyway), but that&#x27;s just a personal opinion (as is everything else I wrote).

I&#x27;m excited to see this. Durandal was (and actually still is) a joy to use and coming up with something this advanced with a possible migration path is amazing.<p>Small confusion: They chose to use 6to5 and jspm but jspm depends on Traceur and there is even an issue[1] for supporting 6to5 on jspm issue tracker. (Edit: Just discovered that they were answering questions on Gitter[2])<p>[1]: <a href="https://github.com/jspm/jspm-cli/issues/354" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;jspm&#x2F;jspm-cli&#x2F;issues&#x2F;354</a> [2]: <a href="https://gitter.im/Aurelia/Discuss" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitter.im&#x2F;Aurelia&#x2F;Discuss</a>

Despite the claim of supporting &quot;WebComponents&quot; I can&#x27;t see any evidence in the source that it actually does.<p>There are no calls to document.registerElement() in the framework or templating repositories, and it looks like any element registration is happening against a proprietary registry, so that Aurelia components won&#x27;t be available in standard web pages outside of the Aurelia framework, which would be the exact same situation we already have with Ember, Angular, React, etc.<p>Can someone from the Aurelia team clarify this?

I hate to sound jaded and cynical, but am I the only one who feels weird about a new framework announcement containing information for getting training and consulting? I understand that there is no money in releasing free frameworks, but it seems a little soon to be selling consulting and training on an early-access preview...

This looks a bit like Angular 1.3 and 2.0 to me - DI, binding and repeats look like ng-model and ng-repeat.. I&#x27;m curious to see more when the full docs are out though. No mention of isomorphism or a virtual DOM, seems to be a bit behind the zeitgeist.

After reading through a lot of blah: <a href="http://aurelia.io/docs.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;aurelia.io&#x2F;docs.html</a>

We use Durandal as our SPA framework and we love it. So glad to see this. Rob knows how to write a framework.

Is this like Angular in that it can&#x27;t be run on a Node&#x2F;io.js server to generate HTML? Any isomorphic plans for it&#x27;s future?

From a development standpoint, it reminds me of Silverlight and WPF. I&#x27;m very happy to see this. MVVM is a simple but powerful pattern.

So this is why he bailed on the Angular team?

YET. ANOTHER. Javascript framework.<p>This is what people are talking about in countless blog posts (that also make their way to the front page of HN.)<p>So glad I&#x27;m not a front end dev trying to keep up with this world.

Looks interesting. It would be nice if they were more specific about what browsers the framework supports though. There&#x27;s a phrase that you can &quot;Leverage the technology of the future but target today&#x27;s Evergreen Browsers.&quot; That&#x27;s a nice bit of copywriting, but it doesn&#x27;t instantly tell me which browsers are supported. It would be nice to have an official supported list.

Been using Durandal for awhile in production, looking forward to the next chapter.

The video, the intro, the docs, ... None of them seem to mention testing. That&#x27;s a disappointment.<p>Anyone got a link on how to test an Aurelia app?

This seems really nice. Just looking through the first few links and pages, it seems to have all of the nice things I enjoy about Angular. It looks like it may have less of a learning curve too, which would be very nice.

We&#x27;ve reached a point where I don&#x27;t even need to open links named &quot;Introducing [fancy sounding name]&quot; to know that it&#x27;s yet another Javascript framework.

How good is the ES6 transpiler used for this? My experience with ES6 transpilers thus far hasn&#x27;t been great. The feature support seems to be very spotty.

That&#x27;s how you do a client-side framework or any framework for that matter, forward thinking with backwards compatibility and no custom nonsense tying it to a specific language (AtScript).

Not an impressive site..<p>Error 1008 Ray ID: 1af3b92032e50713 • 2015-01-27 08:54:00 UTC Access denied What happened?<p>The owner of this website (blog.durandal.io) has banned your IP address

This is a small thing to point out but I wish they picked a name that were easier to type out. aurelia-* is so much more verbose than ng-<i>

vs enyo.js?

My wife&#x27;s name is Aurelia and its really weird to see a web framework named this. Its like naming a framework: &quot;Thomas&quot;.<p>Example:<p>Me: What tools&#x2F;framework did you use to build the app?<p>You: Aurelia.<p>Me: Oh cool, I used Thomas.<p>You: Yeah, I thought about using Thomas, but stuck with Aurelia because it offered better features.