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

121–130 of 356 posts

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#121

Post by gjolund »

tomc1985 wrote: post #97
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…

How funny, then, that the framework people can't seem to standardize over anything more than jquery or react? If layers upon layers of frameworks really were the best approach for complex applications then why can't people get behind one clear winner? Why does there seem to be a new framework popping up all that damn time? How much money has been lost simply keeping up with the artificially hastened pace of change? N…

I profit from people's lack of technical expertise every day, and I'm proud of it.

People come to me because they acknowledge that they don't understand the problems they are faced with, and I provide maintainable solutions that work for years after the contract has been completed.

How?

I choose a widely adopted framework that is suited to the task and follow the best practices of the community that developed it.

That way when I leave people don't say my app is "A spaghetti be-spoke js app" but instead "Its an angular/ember/react-redux app." See the difference?

One is the opinions of a single developer (or small team), the other is the culmination of hundreds of open source developers working together to solve common problems in a maintainable and performant way.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#122

Post by edejong »

gjolund wrote: post #104
edejong wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The (beta) protocol was pretty well documented at the time and it took relatively little time to implement the iOS client. 2000 lines of code is relatively easy to understand, even without someone explaining what's going on.

The project wasn't a failure at all. Currently being used in a production setting for communication in and between hospitals and medical labs.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#123

Post by gjolund »

tobltobs wrote: post #111
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 feel like people who say "just use the dom" don't actually have enough experience to know why that is such a bad idea." "You people really are kidding yourselves. I feel bad for whoever is paying your salaries." "Honestly, it just sounds like you are bad at managing your own software projects" "I'm really glad I don't have to work with people who think like this." "Both are signs of inexperience." "I guess I won't…

I am very good at what I do.

I have had lots of these conversations with other people who think they are good at what they do.

This line of thinking kills companies, because the prototyper they hired for their "MVP" doesn't like frameworks. A year later he/she is gone and I'm rebuilding their app as an angular app.

You don't have to agree with me, but I am right. Millions of of dollars in contracts and a resume full of happy returning clients says so.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#124

Post by tomc1985 »

gjolund wrote: post #121
tomc1985 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How funny, then, that the framework people can't seem to standardize over anything more than jquery or react? If layers upon layers of frameworks really were the best approach for complex applications then why can't people get behind one clear winner? Why does there seem to be a new framework popping up all that damn time? How much money has been lost simply keeping up with the artificially hastened pace of change? N…

I profit from people's lack of technical expertise every day, and I'm proud of it. People come to me because they acknowledge that they don't understand the problems they are faced with, and I provide maintainable solutions that work for years after the contract has been completed. How? I choose a widely adopted framework that is suited to the task and follow the best practices of the community that developed it. Tha…

I think you're touching on exactly the problem: a 'spaghetti be-spoke' js app. Can a JS app be anything but? Javascript is a language for the view layer. It's supposed to be the minimal shim on top of LAMP or Rails or whatever, to bridge the gap between static HTML and dynamic movement. It was never supposed to run the entire app!

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#126

Post by gjolund »

tobltobs wrote: post #115
gjolund wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Complexity requires structure in order to be maintainable. A competent lead programmer will choose a structure that adheres to common best practices and is maintained by a community. Also known as a framework. >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 posi…

Are you are replying to yourself? You are quoting yourself.

Way to avoid adding any more the conversation.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#127

Post by gjolund »

tomc1985 wrote: post #124
gjolund wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I profit from people's lack of technical expertise every day, and I'm proud of it. People come to me because they acknowledge that they don't understand the problems they are faced with, and I provide maintainable solutions that work for years after the contract has been completed. How? I choose a widely adopted framework that is suited to the task and follow the best practices of the community that developed it. Tha…

I think you're touching on exactly the problem: a 'spaghetti be-spoke' js app. Can a JS app be anything but? Javascript is a language for the view layer. It's supposed to be the minimal shim on top of LAMP or Rails or whatever, to bridge the gap between static HTML and dynamic movement. It was never supposed to run the entire app!

You are ignoring huge problems.

How does a LAMP/RAILS app share server side rendering code with the client?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app share data models between the server and client?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app provide search engines with indexable dynamic pages?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app preserve client state between page reloads?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app synchronize client state between multiple connected clients?

Your lack of experience working in a professional front-end environment is telling, and is the source of your confusion.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#128

Post by eggy »

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…

'simple people' as opposed to? I think people are coming down really hard on the article, and I found it to be light-hearted, and simply asking people to revisit where we're at. He doesn't call for anybody to stop using their frameworks. I am studying Erlang/LFE. I chose LFE over Elixir (I know it is not a framework), since I like Lisp rather than the Ruby-like syntax of Elixir, and because one of the creators of Erlang (Robert Virding) has his weight behind LFE; he created it. It is a subjective choice for me. Elixir is great, and a lot of Ruby hackers have picked it up. Do I need Erlang/BEAM/OTP ,right now? Certainly not, but I am studying it anyhow. If I get the chance to implement it for a job, would I do it just because I like it, and WhatsApp uses it effectively? No, unless a fit comes along for it. I do think a lot of people aspire to work for FB and Co. and so they learn those their frameworks, and I would wager there is probably a lot of people trying to bring them into their smaller companies to get the chance to work with them. I find the simile to building a car from scratch, stretching it if you are not FB, WhatsApp, or another biggie. And you should be eager to be able to step into a smaller company who has outgrown its "homegrown" implementation and help them use a framework; you just shouldn't find your happiness only when your neighbor's cow dies ;) But a smaller company shouldn't run with a framework with the vision they will be needing it in 3 years based upon no real analysis of their needs, but based just on wishful thinking. The money could be used to grow the company, and then adopt it at the appropriate time.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#129

Post by bikamonki »

This eternal argument of js framework/non-framework reminds me of them old days of static html when Dreamweaver will just munch a PSD file and spit out working HTML + Images + CSS. Some of us hated it b/c the output was bloated, super hard to read/maintain, etc. So, some of us just went ahead and coded from scratch. I guess the preference has to do with a need to 'understand' what's going on. Tools like React or frameworks like Angular are just the modern Dreamweavers: don't mind the inner-workings, just follow the rules and get the desired output.

If I can recommend a js framework so flexible it feels like a non-framework I'd say go and learn Backbone.js It's like a flat green Lego table, no assumptions, just structure.

Post reply on HN