Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

slack-files.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 356 posts

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#101

Post by CuriouslyC »

mortenjorck wrote: post #56

This 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.

Sorry, I have to disagree strongly. For starters, bootstrap provides consistent and attractive default styles. Additionally, if you implement your styles as a bootstrap theme, third party components that are written with bootstrap in mind will (usually) automatically have the correct look & feel.

Flexbox is definitely a lot nicer than the Bootstrap column system though.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#102

Post by takno »

gjolund wrote: post #92
takno wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main contention of the article is that this "simplicity" is illusory. You end up writing just as much code, but now you've added a complex dependency you don't really understand but have to make your customers download, and ultimately have to test against

That seems incredibly anecdotal. Perhaps if you don't understand the framework you are using. Ember (for example), takes care of huge swathes of complexity for you. I can't imagine trying to build a: * client side router * data transportation/cache layer * view layer * model layer * build pipeline ... and more, in less code that just `npm install -g ember-cli` `ember new my-app` And then having a common app structure…

I'm paying my salary. In my last performance review I rated myself outstanding and gave myself a substantial bonus. Frankly my employer is a little bit irritated by your arrogant comments about his hiring policies

You list a lot of things that a framework gives you, but they vary between the small (routers are easy if you can ignore #) and the things which you probably don't need but have been convinced you want by your framework

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#103

Post by kup0 »

I don't think frameworks and tools are the problem. I have dealt with the same frustrations about these huge tool-chains but I've always seen it all boil down to one key point: the problem is not the tools- it is not choosing the right tools for the project at hand. Then you get websites and apps that really bloat up because of the overkill or poor choices.

There's the whole side issue of progressive enhancement and/or making a non-JS version of a site, but I feel like those ideals are now dead- whether it's due to it being unfeasible, unaffordable, or something else.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#104

Post by gjolund »

edejong wrote: post #95
gjolund wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it just sounds like you are bad at managing your own software projects and trying to blame it on the web team. If your code had been as easy to understand as you say it is there would have been no need to re-write it. Also, your acknowledgement that it was difficult to maintain makes my point for me.

It wasn't written to be easily maintainable, as it was a PoC. So no comments, relatively short naming. However, it had good SoC and simple logic to update views. Minimal, but understandable. I wanted it to be rewritten before I wrote the first line of code. My trust went to someone who does full-time web development (I'm alround, full-stack).

What is the argument here?

You wrote a POC of unmaintainable code, and then some junior web devs butchered your project because it was undocumented and "understandable" to you only.

Get off your high horse.

If I was your boss I would be asking why you didn't speak up earlier, and why you didn't document your work better.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#105

Post by jamesknelson »

gjolund wrote: post #63

I'm really glad I don't have to work with people who think like this. You don't NEED a framework, just like you could theoretically build a car from scratch. If your app isn't complex enough to merit using a framework, then you aren't really building something worth talking about. Frameworks do exactly what they say, provide a common framework for your team to work off of while they build a complex application. I fee…

I like how you put "you could theoretically build a car from scratch". As someone who writes about and uses React daily, and have written things from scratch before, that strikes me as a really good way of explaining the utility of frameworks to newcomers.

While most apps with any complexity will end up using some sort of framework, there is no rule which says it has to be an existing one. In my experience, a lot of the more involved projects I've worked on have used their own custom framework (as opposed to React, Angular, etc.) The upshot of this is that it is certainly possible to build something worth talking about without using one of the popular frameworks.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#106

Post by edejong »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #74
edejong wrote: post #43

I still remember doing a PoC for an end-to-end secure messaging app with web support, around 3 years back. It was written in plain JS with jquery and one or two libs for crypto bolted on. Simple, easy, but not very maintenance friendly written. Took around 2000 lines all in all. One of four clients (Android, iOS and a bot framework in Scala/Java). Then the web-boys came in to rewrite my... well, contraption. In came…

>they buried a relatively simple and elegant messaging system in tons and tons of incoherent, unmaintained, inextensible and incompatible (with websockets at the time) stuff. If all it was was a chat app then angular was over kill. Leveraging frameworks on projects for which they're unnecessary doesn't show that the frameworks are bad, just that the devs are bad. The reality was probably that those "web-boys" have to…

Your comments reflect my feelings at the time. Trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Angular had (and still has) some really useful features and so do many other frameworks/libraries. However, it's the combinatorial complexity of having a dozen of them at the same time, each with their own DSL, coding conventions, community (or lack of it), that makes it overkill.

By the way, as the nature of these messaging apps is mostly in async messaging, it proved quite hard to unit-test.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#108

Post by gjolund »

takno wrote: post #102
gjolund wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems incredibly anecdotal. Perhaps if you don't understand the framework you are using. Ember (for example), takes care of huge swathes of complexity for you. I can't imagine trying to build a: * client side router * data transportation/cache layer * view layer * model layer * build pipeline ... and more, in less code that just `npm install -g ember-cli` `ember new my-app` And then having a common app structure…

I'm paying my salary. In my last performance review I rated myself outstanding and gave myself a substantial bonus. Frankly my employer is a little bit irritated by your arrogant comments about his hiring policies You list a lot of things that a framework gives you, but they vary between the small (routers are easy if you can ignore #) and the things which you probably don't need but have been convinced you want by y…

Hilarious.

You are the only person working on the project and you are patting yourself on the back for writing "maintainable" code.

Bring 50 more people into the project and then lets talk.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#109

Post by scope »

- shows an example using mutation observer API and fails to mention it only works on IE 11+

- follows the widely accepted format of "rant about some popular framework/library/language by mimicking a tiny portion of it"

- uses shock factor to get the reader's attention

> React, Virtual DOM, Webpack, TypeScript, JSX… HOLD ON! Let’s pause for a second here and think.

YES, you don't always need a framework/library BUT if you want to build something maintainable & scalable, it's better to opt for battle tested approaches (which is especially true when it comes to the web, having browser quirks)

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#110

Post by jlg23 »

edejong wrote: post #43

I still remember doing a PoC for an end-to-end secure messaging app with web support, around 3 years back. It was written in plain JS with jquery and one or two libs for crypto bolted on. Simple, easy, but not very maintenance friendly written. Took around 2000 lines all in all. One of four clients (Android, iOS and a bot framework in Scala/Java). Then the web-boys came in to rewrite my... well, contraption. In came…

I can relate to your experience but you, just as me, seem not to be a typical front-end developer - the "web-boys" (a term which probably got you the down-votes) on the other hand are. If one asks them why they do things the way they do them, they usually have a coherent answer and are happy to explain it.

As someone else pointed out in this thread, a great advantage of established frameworks is that they provide a coding standard for a team. People who do this stuff every day can easily follow the standard, understand the flow and be very productive. They did invest lots of time to learn about all those tools and libraries and probably had an overall productivity gain compared to writing native JS.

If you don't really enjoy front-end development, and your comment reads like you don't, get on your high horse and join me for a ride while the "web-boys" make our hacked UIs usable for end-users and maintainable for the next "web-boys" who have to hack on it. When we get back we'll probably be very grateful for a great UI(X). ;)

Post reply on HN