Show HN: Q.js – Smaller than React/Vue, yet more powerful (40KB gzipped)
github.comSo what shouldn't be there? Well, most of it. You don't need a whole section of "Advantages over other frameworks" and then a table comparing to other frameworks.
You don't need most of the overview you have. Just picking something random: there's a full table with methods of Q.event. These are details; it's simply too much information that is not helpful to someone who wants a general overview of your project. The same can be said for most of the stuff there. The section on templates is useless for a README: It shows some very specific details (like the fact that there's a Q.Template.load.options.dir) without actually showing a real-world example, because foo, bar, baz, Some/name, and the code actually shown is all synthetic and abstract.
And that's the other problem: It's generic info. And so we get to what the README is missing: A simple, complete, minimal, working example.
And, yes, you end up the README with "Putting it all together", I know. But again, it's an abstract and generic thing. It shows a bunch of code ideas just thrown together for the shake of showing them. Even the comments in that code say things like "you could do this", "you could do that". It doesn't really help.
What you really need is something like a counter and two buttons to increment/decrement, or an input box and a list that gets filtered as you type, or whatever. Something silly and small... but complete and working. You don't need to show off all the features in that example. Just make sure that the code in the example clearly represents the typical way you'd write it and that you can hopefully keep it under 20-25 lines. Make it so simple and self-explanatory that you don't need to add many comments or any at all if possible. Ideally, make it so that you can actually just put that code into CodePen/JSFiddle/JSBin/CodeSandbox/Plunker/WhateverYouPrefer and then link it with "See this example live".
Again, it won't show all the features available and that is fine. But it will give the reader a fairly good idea of the general approach and the feel of using your framework. Because right now, with so much information the README gives a feeling that your framework it's anything but small, that is something complex with lots of abstract options and ways of doing things.
That's a guide and so it has more details. What I was saying is that the README, in a way, needs less details.
Also, that guide still makes the same mistake of using generic examples and names. It's full of foo, 'bar', someOtherEvent, First.onConnect('something', 'here').handle(arg1, arg2), etc and that's not really how you should write documentation.
The README should have one -two, at most- simple but representative and complete example. An example that shows actual usage of something simple enough to be small. See the examples I suggested above. As a companion to that, you can put that same code in JSFiddle and link to it in the README, but keep both the code and link in the README.
As for the documentation, what I said is that the code shown should always be good code, code where names make sense. You may or may not make the effort of putting full JSFiddle examples into your documentation, but the code that you put in the docs should use meaningful names.
https://codepen.io/Qbix-Inc/pen/ogjamBy
How to best embed them in github? Are they helpful?
With all this talk about the README, has no one even tried including the js file and USING the framework before commenting?
I should have it up on a CDN, that’s true. How best to include it in one of the JS CDNs? That way people can literally just include it, or click on a jsfiddle link and play around with examples.
I thought the “overview” section was supposed to cover progressively all the main use cases of how to use the framework. So you would get the idea and try it yourself.
To be frank, no. That is too much to ask.
The overview, as explained in another comment, fails to be convincing. And you're asking people to spend time and code something up when it isn't even clear if your framework has any real and convincing advantages.
It is you who should create that first working example, which someone can then tinker with and modify.
The advantages are clear since they are stated up front.
The only question is whether the framework works at all and actually lives up to what the README says.
I agree with you regarding the working example. There should be many of them.
I don't like the `Namespace/another/view` that is in there. Just build something else, for all I care even a todo app so I can see what these values would be in a real-life example.
It kind of does, however "user" is the one who loads the site with the framework here, not the developer.
Some example working with other frameworks will be very helpful!
Does it work with JSX?
EDIT: just saw that it only supports .js and .html