download mame emulator windows 7

Name: download mame emulator windows 7
Category: Free
Published: zacontchodzma1972
Language: English

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get this complaint at all. Between map and ternary expressions, you can get both loops and conditionals in your markup, e.g.
Again, this is simply untrue. In fact I'd argue that if you're using lots of .binds you're doing it wrong. .binds inside your render function are actually bad practice due to the fact that they mean you're adding overhead of creating new bound functions as each .bind returns a brand new function every time your render tree executes. The overhead of such is probably negligible, however it's still inefficient and cumbersome and thus is bad practice.
I am not advocating that the JSX is particularly pretty or clever. I am objecting to your crazy notion that there should be no logic in the representation layer.
What is that if not an horribly verbose switch case for modifying the representation of different elements passed to the ItemsControl?
(This is another way of putting what I said earlier about "prioritising usability for non-web devs".)
This is even worse as for me. Generally the JSX/React.createElement approach itself and the fact that many people like the idea make me cry. Do people like it just because it's given by FB?
If your point of view is that a model is meant for more than just doing the view, then yes, adding view only fields may pollute it for others (e.g., analytics).
Why? Because tooling. Anything that's in JavaScript can be linted with ESLint, can be typed with Flow or TypeScript, is subject to dead code elimination by my minifier, can be shared via ES6 Modules/CommonJS wihin my project or NPM with no magic. All editors that understand JavaScript will give me all of their shinies (eg: tell me if I screwed up a conditional) without needing special framework specific support.
But i am using Vue with Pug and Stylus, i am fine with it.
many years later, the workarounds like class -> className were designed by whatever party exerted most control over the JS DOM API (which is not really part of "Javascript itself") at the time, and who also brought you inconsistent camelcasing such as "onclick" .
But of course for you is better the JSX code. Luckily for me you will never have to review any of my pull requests, I seriously doubt that you can accept something that you don't understand.
JSX is another templating language. One built on top of JavaScript rather than HTML.
Note that people who use React + JSX and make stuff like "if" or "else" components fall into these problems too, so those have to be fully avoided.
Easy, just create a computed property in Vue.
> It is not immune to the criticism that it requires learning.
> and the obnoxious attribute name for dynamically inserted html.
Also, you got some display logic in your examples there, buddy. If you can't see it then no wonder this conversation is going in a circle.
Have you tried QT or Xamarin?
Thrilled to hear it! If you do try it in more depth, please do drop me a line (email in my profile).
As for Object.keys() - While I share your dislike of the overuse of this particular method, I'd love an example of where you think this is forced on you by JSX because for the life of me I can't think of one.
From the top of my head, I can at least remember six template engines' syntax I've learned: Smarty (PHP), Mustache, Blade (PHP), EJS, Angular and another custom template engine. When I tried React I was so happy that I did not have to learn another template syntax as it all was just JavaScript .
When I last gave it a try I had to manually generated the HTML document but without a (at least of of the box) syntax like jsx. If I recall correctly graphics is still there, but it's mainly used for games.
But it means you don't have to learn a library's HTML API.
But nonetheless you feel entitled to discuss about things in which you have zero knowledge. This is the JSX code posted in this thread:
Will do. And will try to reserve any web-dev specific comments. :)
//inside the render method.
So, I look at it the other way around: My JS would be more disciplined (and there'd be les of it), as I'd be released from the need to use it so much for stuff like DOM handling. In my ideal world, I wouldn't even know there was a DOM or HTML or CSS. I'd just use JS in event handling and, perhaps, functionality that directly supports the same.
First reason is we hate JSX. It forces you to write loops, conditionals, etc, outside of the markup you are currently writing/reading. It's like writing shitty PHP code without templates. It also forces you to use a lot of boilerplate like bind(), Object.keys(), etc.
1. Basically, the moment you use JS, any discipline or abstraction you were trying to introduce dissolves. People will reach in and use the DOM/combine it with other Web frameworks/what-have-you. And then you'll still need to know HTML and CSS and all these other pieces, as well as this new framework, and you've done the opposite of simplifying web development. This is the "Javascript Framework of the Week" failure mode.
JSX itself used to cause these problems too (but createElement and the factories of old did not), but now that they're pervasive and that anything that supports ES6 supports JSX, I get all of these benefits for free.
Edit: I should also mention that Mithril comes with routing built in, as well as XHR utility and streams. I'm finding streams super useful for sophisticated state management.
* You have no idea about WPF and what is a view model.
> It also forces you to use a lot of boilerplate like bind(), Object.keys(), etc.
This is quite simply false, it doesn't force you to do any of these things. A lot of people seem to think it does which again comes from a misunderstanding of the syntax. You're quite able to either embed your logic into the JSX or not, whichever you prefer. I most often see people lean toward the former unless the logic in question is extremely complex in which case it could be argued it's best being removed from the markup anyway. But JSX itself does not force you either way.
The challenge of such a system is that the web platform is so huge and sprawling, and constantly growing - and all of it's written in JS/HTML. So we've made the pragmatic choice to prioritise usability by non-web developers, and open an "escape hatch" for doing layout etc in HTML if you really need to. But most of our users don't need it, and we're constantly working to extend the boundary of what you can do with simple properties and components.
Sometimes it might be useful, for small components,something like.
> It forces you to write loops, conditionals, etc, outside of the markup you are currently writing/reading.
TBH, in 2017, I'm not sure why we're still hand-generating HTML with any template language.
If you are looking for exactly this feature you might be disappointed.
2. Contrary to your assertion, "most devs" don't actually know JS. It's something people only learn because they're learning front-end web development, and it's difficult to learn it without the whole HTML/CSS/frameworks hairball. Python is much friendlier to, eg, data scientists or embedded programmers or back-end developers, who have every right to think they should be able to put together a web app without learning three new programming languages and two new frameworks.
> and all of it's written in JS/HTML.
I am sure it wouldn't be very hard to develop such a layer within React if needed.
I'm probably too biased to make a call on this. I'm so wanting to be released from that madness that I'd fight tooth-and-nail not to descend back into it.
mistakes were made. then copied, repeated and finally, standardised :)
But, I missed the emphasis on the "non-Web devs" portion of your statement. I do get that and applaud you for staying with your focus. The product has to have a market and an identity. OTOH, it feels so close for guys like me in the Web dev world who know there's a better way!
And use native array methods instead of v-for v-if and filtering data with component methods.
> The JSX transform used to do that, but we don't recommend it because it's confusing if you ever try to pass >[1] https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/4433#issuecomment-1.
> "most devs" don't actually know JS. people only learn because they're learning front-end web development.
The role of the model is and has always been to handle /business/ logic not presentational logic. If you put your dirty presentational logic inside my models I can tell you I will /never never/ accept your pull request.
> we've made the pragmatic choice to prioritise usability by non-web developers, and open an "escape hatch.
I think the intense UI-demands of progressiveness/SPAs expose the unsuitability of HTML for the task. But, simply because HTML is what we're stuck with browser-wise, there's no reason we have to think or work in HTML. Use tooling to abstract it away altogether and let a translator generate it.
Was thinking more something like this, but for SPAs.
All JSX is doing is transforming `
Having the ability to see exactly what's in scope right next to the markup to me is invaluable - one of my biggest dislikes in templating languages is swapping between files that define the data in the scope and the template to use said data.
* You don't know JSX.
* You have no idea of the specific example posted in this thread that I'm speaking of.
it's neither quite "native", nor is "defined by the same standards bodies" much of a sign of good design or worthy of copying.
> There is no official React router.
These are for desktop/mobile apps right? If so, yeah, there are other options as well.
(The reason for the name change is that old versions of JS couldn't use keywords - like "for" and "class" - as property names.)
> please do drop me a line (email in my profile).
Instead of this monstrosity in XAML would be like this:
And, this is the part where I do have to scratch my head a little. I'm going to guess you've heard this question 4,321,257 times, but why not support JS? It is the lingua franca of the Web (as your quote acknowledges) for better or worse, and virtually all devs already know it. There's also a rich JS library ecosystem.
Instead, I'd really like to see a framework that gets away from the idea of HTML templating altogether and presents a true component/properties model on top of a canvas with flexible, property-driven layout options.
I simply don't see a viable comparison here at all.
> The XAML file, as the HTML layer, should be completely devoid of logic and should delegate the whole work to the underlying model.
The moment I hop into template/DSL land, I either hope there's a plugin with all the same benefits (often there is not), or I'm sad.
I personally prefer this because when creating the top level of a component, I largely don't care about the individual elements of a list, but rather am structuring how that list will be contained etc.
Prepare to fight sound css server download.
Depends on your taste, but this is a plus for me, personally.
But if your model is meant to drive the view of the app, then the story is very different. And some times you can't even tell if the model is just there to drive the view our not, since requirements change often.
And let's not discount then the value that JSX brings of being able to easily unit test that your conditional logic renders the correct output easily (Jest + Enzyme = easiest tests I've ever had to write, bar simple functional checks).
It's takes maybe 10 minutes if you're already a little bit familiar with XML and know Javascript.
Or when you want to loop through myList, but exclude a few particular items. you know how to write that in JS, but have no idea what to do in the mark up language. You could create a filteredList, but it's often not ideal.
Preact does something similar to allow this. However it now seems it is now too late for React for too little benefit. And there's a downside [1]:
Vue docs are probably one of the best I've used. They provide technical docs, plus excellent narrative docs (guides) for all their projects (Vue, Router, Vuex, templates, etc).
> People will reach in and use the DOM/combine it with other Web frameworks/what-have-you. And then you'll still need to know HTML and CSS.
I feel like this is often the reason people dislike React, and it mostly comes out of a misunderstanding of JSX and es6 syntax and interaction. Why do I say this? Because I've yet to hear an argument that came after a statement like above which was actually true in any way. Most arguments that come after actually expose the fact that the author of the statement simply doesn't understand the syntax usually because they've never really bothered to try to use it and instead are simply turned off by something new in their code.
The idea that I have to pick up Python just to try it out introduces more friction. I'm guessing that might slow adoption with a huge percentage of your potential audience who might otherwise have the knowledge they need to jump right in.
> Although not strictly associated with the MVVM pattern, Vue’s design was partly inspired by it. As a convention, we often use the variable vm (short for ViewModel) to refer to our Vue instance.
Another template engine syntax? No, thank you. I stick to React.
> the web platform is so huge and sprawling, and constantly growing.
We have a components+properties model, driven in Python, which gets translated to HTML+JS+CSS. We also have a visual editor, and abstractions over a bunch of the client-server stuff that's typically icky on the Web.
For me, it's the other way around. I feel like you can still separate the logic and markup, but instead of the template engine syntax you can just JavaScript.
> why not support JS?
Another problem with React is that it only really solves one problem. There is no official React router and we hated using the unofficial react-router for a number of reasons. A lot of people end up using MobX too.
That's what I intended--that most web devs know JS--as I was speaking in the context of web development.
those are the Javascript attribute names.
React forces JSX use, so a lot of times the battle between Vue vs React seems to be Vue Templates vs JSX which never makes sense to me.
I see. Kind of a purist approach that eliminates all temptation by not offering the option to go there. Sound reasoning, as JS definitely has slippery-slope potential.
With Vue there is no need to resort to third parties for your essential blocks. It provides an official router and store called Vuex, which IMO blows Redux out of the water when combined with Vue's reactive data.
feels more like if someone were to build, say, a modern high perf numerical library that includes necessary workarounds tributed to the eax/ax/ah/al peculiarities of x86 assembly.
Makes sense. And totally worth the tradeoff for the developer if it helps me flip the 80/20 rule around. And, if the component model is extensible such that, when I do have to open the escape hatch, I can plug a resulting component back into the framework (lay it out and set properties in the visual editor, etc.), that might be even more optimal. Either way, I'd rather a framework do the heavy lifting and let me deal with the edge cases than me do all of the heavy lifting and plumbing, so that's a win.
> It's like writing shitty PHP code without templates.

Granted, there is still some syntax you need to learn for JSX, but it's very little. If you already know HTML's syntax, the only new things I can think of are the curly braces for using JS expressions as prop values (you also need to know what a JS expression is, lest you try to use an if statement), and spread attributes.
I don't really know JSX much and without a specific example this is pointless to discuss. But basically JSX is syntactic sugar over javascript. A ternary is just a "if" condition so I don't see where is the issue here. Are you really using a template language devoid of conditionals? Even mustache the "logic-less" template has a form of it.
I won't say that Vue is perfect, but we would never go back to React.
If you don't like Vue but want to get out of React, check out Marko, the UI library by Ebay. It's better in every way than Vue or React except that the community and ecosystem are almost non existent.
React defines `React.createElement`, `
It has a clean-slate design, and there's a ton of buzz in the Elm community about it. :)
It gets really old to see people try failed experiments over and over again, which pretty much is what you are suggesting.
This I completely agree with, it is annoying, and I too am not a fan of react-router. However it's so easy to create your own routing setup and/or plug and play other lightweight ones that I don't usually think of it as a particular plus/minus point when comparing to frameworks like Vue.
http://asdorisli1972.eklablog.com/82801-pci-bridge-driver-download-...