should we use jsbin instead of jsfiddle?

[Wes0617]

apparently jsbin is "less annoying" compared to jsfiddle, should we use it for live examples?

[ghost]

In regards to Issue #1 live examples will be on the Github pages so no longer a need for a 3rd party service like jsbin or jsfiddle. That way all the example are contained within the Github site and does not require the user to leave the site to view a demo of the code.

However, it is still nice to provide a jsbin so people can easily modify the code live to see how it would look and behave if they so choose. So yeah, I say we should switch to JSbin. Do you want to update the current examples to point to JSbin demos?

[mainerror]

I don't mind, whatever you are more comfortable with.

[DaveRandom]

IMO jsbin is better for polished concrete examples and jsfiddle is better for, well, fiddling. If ever I throw something together on the fly to demonstrate something for a user on a question/in chat then I use jsfiddle, but if you have a static example of some specific technique that won't change and all you want is a link to throw at people who ask "how do I do X" then I would say jsbin is more suited.

Just my $0.02

[Wes0617]

do you mean your ₤ 0.02 ? :-P

i don't know jsbin much, i only know that jsfiddle is very annoying, that's why i'm asking

[Wes0617]

@kyRAD are you sure examples will not be limited somehow?

[mainerror]

@WesNetmo In what way?

[Wes0617]

well for example, unless pages are stored on a third level domain seems difficult that javascript would be enabled on them

[mainerror]

@WesNetmo and me discussed that in chat. His concerns were about having access to GitHub's cookies which has been addressed by GH by moving their GH pages service to a .io domain. So GH cookies won't be accessible form GH pages.