You don't need one, but if you don't eventually adopt one, you'll end up writing one.
I guess that's why we have so many! bah dum bum chh
You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
81–90 of 356 posts
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#82"Another example is the Fetch API"... That API has very limited cross-browser support. One of the largest reasons web frameworks exist is to bridge the gaps between browser incompatibilities/offering legacy support. I don't know if this person has even really scaled and deployed a web application that must work across several browsers - especially older browser versions. I always wonder that whenever I see people bas…
Yeah I find it hard to believe that the people who go on about how convoluted web development is actually get paid to do web development. 1) Where are all the people hiring web devs who don't know a single library or framework? 2) Why do huge tech companies like facebook and google develop web frameworks if they're unnecessary?
So your suggesting that if you question the system, you shouldn't get hired, or paid?
I don't think he's saying hire web developers who don't use a single library or framework; he's calling for some perspective by looking at the latest state of system. He answered #2 in the very beginning of the article:
"React was created to solve the issues Facebook were facing with their massive amount of data, activity and size."
"They then went ahead and open-sourced it and released it to the public, where many developers seem to have come to the conclusion that “Facebooks’ solution to their problem is the solution to my problem”. This - in the majority of cases - is not true."
I found the article refreshing in that aspect.
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#83You don't need one, but if you don't eventually adopt one, you'll end up writing one.
Sure, you may well end up writing one, but it's likely to be a fraction of the size. My current entire app is running at half the size of jquery, which is getting me awesomely quick page loads even on poor mobile connections. The dev time was longer, but not crazily longer, and the surface area for testing is somewhat smaller
Can you post a link to your app? Would love to see an example of a frameworkless web app.
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#84The point of React isn't its performance (though that is nice). The point of React is the simplicity and composability of functional components. You can create this on your own of course (and I have), but the solution of "just use the DOM" ignores an enormous amount of progress that React made with component design , not performance.
I feel like people who say "just use the dom" don't actually have enough experience to know why that is such a bad idea.
Its like the people who rail against static typing and like the flexibility of dynamic languages. They just don't know what it is like.
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#85This might be the post that convinces me to write a companion piece on why you probably don't need a CSS framework, either. Browser renderers have come so far since Bootstrap's peak: Flexbox has all but obviated its primary value proposition, and when CSS grids make it out of RFC, using Bootstrap for layout will be like using Backbone to do rollover styling.
I would read that article positively
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If your app isn't complex enough to merit using a framework, then you aren't really building something worth talking about. That's the very mentality that gave us J2EE crapfest and poisoned JS. The idea that a complex app requires a kitchen sink approach and framework-itis...
Complexity requires structure in order to be maintainable. Its not a "kitchen sink", its scaffolding. If you don't understand then you are either writing huge amounts of documentation and test code for your custom solution, or you are acknowledging that your app will be unmaintainable once you leave your position. Both are signs of inexperience.
>Complexity requires structure in order to be maintainable.
Structure is the job of the lead programmer(s), not some third party framework developer. And it should suit the specific job.
It's as if we forgotten that programs have to be designed with an overall architecture based on our business, and instead just download off the shelve scaffoldings and try to adapt our business logic around their design.
You know that Joe Armstrong quote about OOP?
"the problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle"
Well, it's the same with frameworks. You wanted a router, a template engine, and a few more pieces, but you go that, a banana, the entire jungle, and a mustachioed dictator telling you how to do things.
>If you don't understand then you are either writing huge amounts of documentation and test code for your custom solution, or you are acknowledging that your app will be unmaintainable once you leave your position.
It's as if we've forgotten the existence of libraries and APIs, of which there are like 200.000 in npm, and 50 of them are also really good.
>Both are signs of inexperience.
Some of the most experienced programmers, of 20+ years of career of successful projects, don't trust frameworks (and surely neither the "framework du jour" of JS, nor the "framework that ate Cincinnati" approach of J2EE of yore).
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I find it hard to believe that the people who go on about how convoluted web development is actually get paid to do web development. 1) Where are all the people hiring web devs who don't know a single library or framework? 2) Why do huge tech companies like facebook and google develop web frameworks if they're unnecessary?
Do Google even really use angular? I know none of their core products use it. As to Facebook, their website is painfully slow, seems like it's not a model of the right way to do stuff
Google Developer Console,
Doubleclick Platform,
Parts of Chromecast including the Chrome Extension,
YouTube for PS3
Plenty more. You'll notice that a lot of what is written in Angular by Google tends to be their newer platforms/platforms being re-written while Angular was out/coming out. Older products like GMail are extremely complex and transitioning to a saner, more streamlined way to scale those applications usually stems from necessity, but rest assured they use their own framework (take a look at all the gnarly tags and events bound in GMail).
I don't personally use Angular.
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I find it hard to believe that the people who go on about how convoluted web development is actually get paid to do web development. 1) Where are all the people hiring web devs who don't know a single library or framework? 2) Why do huge tech companies like facebook and google develop web frameworks if they're unnecessary?
Do Google even really use angular? I know none of their core products use it. As to Facebook, their website is painfully slow, seems like it's not a model of the right way to do stuff
Well fb is fast for me, so is cloudflare, airbnb, Codecademy, Coursera, Docker, Dropbox, IGN, IMDB, Imgur, Instagram, Khan Academy, Netflix, okcupid, and a whole bunch of other websites that use react.
Plus I like being employed so knowing frameworks and libraries is a must.
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#89[deleted]
Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework
#90React doesn't exist to handle the massive amounts of data that facebook has. React exists to make complex UIs easier to build and maintain. Being able to just write the code once to render a UI from some state and then just reloading the entire UI when the state changes is an incredible simplification of your code. That the author kind of misses this point makes me pay less attention to the rest of the post.
"That the author kind of misses this point makes me pay less attention to the rest of the post." Too bad. The author addressed everything you said. You just didn't read past the sentence you quoted. Nowhere does the piece imply that you should render every state change server-side. In fact, it goes on to show, with specific examples, of how you can get data-binding and partial-update behavior with web-native APIs. Th…
It's odd that nobody that's responded to you so far has pointed out that your comment is totally irrelevant to the comment you're responding to. Nowhere does GP imply that OP implies that you should render every state change server-side. The whole point of react is to render client-side.