Communicating the Ender philosophy

[ColemanGariety]

I've employed this library on my latest project and it's been almost total bliss. It's a shame this library isn't more popular.

From what I can tell, people see it as a competitor to browserify, which it's not, or at least, it shouldn't be.

I think some re-writing of copy is needed to communicate that Ender is not a package manager or a require solution, it's just a library.

--- Want to back this issue? **[Post a bounty on it!](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1053340-communicating-the-ender-philosophy?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F165667&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** We accept bounties via [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F165667&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).

[ded]

it's a composer for modules. it's definitely not a competitor to really anyone else and we too think it's been odd that it hasn't got more traction. there is definitely a core group of folks that use it every day, but such is life. we can have another pass at the copy

[ColemanGariety]

@ded Thanks for responding.

This software should be battling monolithic libs like jQuery, not browserify/requirejs.

If you make that clear and release an update, people will be more inclined to use it.

"The no-library javascript library" just doesn't make much sense. To me, at least.

I didn't understand until after I'd scrolled down and read this:

"small, loosely coupled modules are the future and large, tightly-bound monolithic libraries are the past!"

It seems like you guys should plan an Ender 1.0, re-do the copy, and show it to the community again. Maybe when you launched it was too ahead of its time. jQuery is starting to lose a bit of its steam, people are looking for newer alternatives.

Not sure what a 1.0 release would entail though. A nice way to integrate it into the browserify/requirejs workflow is what seems most needed right now. Also an expanded jeesh that has more core jQuery features. Explain how the jeesh is a better replacement for jQuery. Explain how you can add to your own library with $.ender({}).

[luk-]

I don't think it's wrong to look at ender as a browserify alternative.
There is some overlap in use case to a point where I wouldn't personally
use browserify in a project where I'm already using ender. Perhaps an
article on how to get up and running with a modern ender project would be
helpful.

On Monday, October 28, 2013, Jackson Gariety wrote:

@ded https://github.com/ded Thanks for responding.

This software should be battling monolithic libs like jQuery, not
browserify/requirejs.

If you make that clear and release an update, people will be more inclined
to use it.

"The no-library javascript library" just doesn't make much sense. To
me, at least.

I didn't understand until after I'd scrolled down and read this:

"small, loosely coupled modules are the future and large, tightly-bound
monolithic libraries are the past!"

It seems like you guys should plan an Ender 1.0, re-do the copy, and show
it to the community again. Maybe when you launched it was too ahead of its
time. jQuery is starting to lose a bit of its steam, people are looking for
newer alternatives.

Not sure what a 1.0 release would entail though. A nice way to integrate
it into the browserify/requirejs workflow would be huge.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/184#issuecomment-27250036
.

[rvagg]

dailyjs.com is always keen for articles, if anyone feels like starting to write something up I'm happy to help out and pass it on to Alex for publication; it has great reach. @luk-?

[ColemanGariety]

@luk- @rvagg @ded I think that overlap is what causes people to overlook Ender as a tool.

I don't use Ender to organize my project, i.e: ender add MyModel.js MyCollection.js etc.

I use it to add useful utilities to the $ variable. In a way, I use it to construct my own jQuery with components as I need them. Both from npm and my own code.

I think if Ender focused on that entirely, it would stop turning away requires and browserify users.

The problem isn't getting rid of globals, that's been solved a million times. It's a sea full of sharks and not many other fish.

The problem is monolithic libraries, no? Nobody else is tackling that.

Either way, Ender should pick one and offer a killer solution.

[ded]

yeah. perhaps the CLI has been given too much attention and we don't focus on project management and packing up bundles via package.json

[luk-]

@rvagg I don't think I can write for third party blogs but if someone else
decides to I can probably give feedback.

On Monday, October 28, 2013, Rod Vagg wrote:

dailyjs.com is always keen for articles, if anyone feels like starting to
write something up I'm happy to help out and pass it on to Alex for
publication; it has great reach. @luk- https://github.com/luk-?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/184#issuecomment-27262992
.