[kerkeslager]

The last time I used it was early 2017.

However, I also remember that the rapid breaking of reverse-compatibility was also a problem. The fact that Ember is very different over time is a bug, not a feature.

To Ember's credit, their documentation is superb, and that includes detailed migration plans with each release. All the problems I ran into over time were solvable with the "RTFM" strategy. But I would rather use tools that I can keep a fairly-accurate model of the tool in my head, rather than ones that require deep dives into documentation for updates and trivial changes.

[ravenstine]

That's funny, because my perspective is the opposite on both points. I actually appreciate that they've been able to move forward with new ideas without worrying too much about backward compatibility. (though usually both new and deprecated features are moved into modules that can be imported separately) As far as documentation goes, well, I think it leaves something to be desired. If you like dozens of broken links, the Ember guides are for you. hahaha

Your criticism is totally fair, though. Part of the reason why I asked is because I'm going to be giving a talk at an Ember meetup I'll be hosting in a few weeks and part of it might be about why people are choosing not to use Ember and how we can make it better. So thanks for providing your perspective.

[kerkeslager]

> If you like dozens of broken links, the Ember guides are for you.

I suspect this happens when you fall behind their rapid release cycle, but I always kept my dependencies fairly current when I was using Ember. It's painful, but it's far less painful than falling behind and being forced to make updates all at once later (and with broken docs, apparently).

> Part of the reason why I asked is because I'm going to be giving a talk at an Ember meetup I'll be hosting in a few weeks and part of it might be about why people are choosing not to use Ember and how we can make it better.

My suggestion would be to find a way to make Ember more of a library and less of a framework, if that makes any sense.

I think what React does really well is that it's not weird or difficult to use a few React components in a completely non-React codebase, and it's not weird or difficult to use completely non-React code in a React-heavy codebase. React components are just that: components--there isn't a pervasive MVC structure that makes it difficult or weird to do stuff outside of it. If you have component A and component B, it's easy to have A on one page, B on another page, and A and B on a third page, or two A's, or two B's on the same page. Components are composable and isolated.

With Ember you have a few options to achieve this result: 1) duplicating code to allow the "components", 2) spinning up multiple MVCs in a page to isolate them from interactions, 3) writing some hairy conditional logic inside the "components", so that at least one of the components has to be concerned about the rest of the page.

2 isn't a bad option from a high level, but Ember assumes you'll only be running one MVC per page, and does a bunch of things which makes this nontrivial.

React Components aren't entirely unlike a little MVC, but the assumption from the beginning is that a React component may never have to interact with any other React component. Isolation is the assumption, rather than a single-page app full of entangled components.

But I completely realize that my suggestion is basically, "Make Ember more like React" and as someone with no investment in Ember at this point, there's not really a reason I'd choose Ember over React, which is supported and used by a bunch of much bigger and more mature codebases than Ember is, even if Ember were to switch to a more React-like model.