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

191–200 of 356 posts

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#191

Post by exodust »

jlg23 wrote: post #110
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 c…

> "They did invest lots of time to learn about all those tools and libraries"

Unfortunately that claim doesn't hold up to what I suspect is happening most of the time. At least in my experience at work I've seen tech leads or someone similar introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it".

One case in particular, Angular was chosen and turned out not to be suitable - it ran very slowly with the tasks it was chosen to do in the browser on a particularly busy web page. Learning the limitations of Angular would have gone a long way to avoiding the poor result. Not enough learning, too much embracing shiny new things.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#192

Post by khattam »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #139
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 can't imagine trying to build a: * client side router * data transportation/cache layer * view layer * model layer * build pipeline Why can't you? Routers are easy ; you likely don't need more than a few lines of code to accomplish most of what you need. Caching and data transportation is also easy and simple (there are a million cache libraries if you don't want to write a small one). Views and models have been…

> It's at the point where it should be mostly boilerplate / routine

Yes, that is EXACTLY what many of these frameworks are.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#193

Post by exodust »

cname wrote: post #156
mrlatinos wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's referring to all of hipsters who don't really understand what they're using but they're using it because it's hip. Might offend some, but people shouldn't be so quick to hop on a bandwagon and go wrecking working code.

And then there are the "retro hipsters" who stick with "vanilla JS" and jQuery (not a framework?), smugly denigrating the new wave of modern "hipsters". Repeat ad nauseum.

Might they be denigrating the new wave hipsters on the basis that so many new wave websites are bloated whales on the inside, with pretentious 'mobile-first' machine-pressed skins on the outside? Or perhaps I've just helped you rest your case!

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#194

Post by codeisawesome »

tomc1985 wrote: post #185
codeisawesome wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot easier to learn React than what all of you think. It's especially easier to learn these frameworks when you tried to solve the problem without them and experienced the pain of not having them.

As a user of React, I disagree -- unless you are using React in a javascript runtime, in which case you're probably fine. But I resent react for all the extra cognitive load it forces me to worry about when all I really give a shit about is its shadow DOM implementation. And then, only when I've got page(s) full of data I need to update without lag.

Are you talking about ReactNative? I haven't played with that yet, but it's one reason I chose React in one of my projects (eventual plans to use our web browser components at least partially in Native).

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#195

Post by shitgoose »

gjolund wrote: post #153
shitgoose wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why 50? make it 500! Better yet, make it 5,000 of skilled offshore developers 12 hours away, capable of cranking up few megabytes of code per week each, full test coverage, mocks and injections. Now we are talking! That is maintainable!

Exactly. It is like trying to explain a car assembly line to a guy with a junker in his garage.

was that sarcasm level 2? Or you are serious? Either way, I am impressed!

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#196

Post by khattam »

Svenskunganka wrote: post #137
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…

> And then having a common app structure with thousands of other people that can provide help and insight. You don't think that there are thousands of people who can provide help and insight into the standard Web & DOM API's? I mean, do you in all seriousness think that there are more people that can help you with React than it is that can help you with the Web & DOM API? Not to mention the standard browser libraries…

>There's examples online of a router that's 20 lines

Yes, 20 lines which you have to be responsible for and maintain... and changes over time add up to make it 200.

>The browser already takes care of data transportation ... HTTP protocol, WebSocket protocol or WebRTC

Yep, with boilerplate code that you have to write and again, grows as your use cases grow.

>if you absolutely need one, here (frzr)

Oh, some view layer some guy came up with 22 days ago... or something that has been working for a decade for facebook. I wonder which one I want to go with.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#198

Post by exodust »

jonathankoren wrote: post #161
braythwayt wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your code had been as easy to understand as you say it > is there would have been no need to re-write it. In theory, only difficult-to-understand and/or difficult-to-maintain code is rewritten. In practice, the definition for “difficult-to-understand” and “difficult-to-maintain” often boil down to whatever the team decides they are familiar with... Or want to be familiar with. I wouldn’t assume there’s any corre…

This. I've seen thing rewritten for purely political purposes more often than technical reasons.

Same here. I've also seen the re-written code perform no better than the original but nevertheless celebrated as improved. I guess when billable hours are at the heart, nobody wants to say "and we rebuilt the homepage for what turned out to be no reason at all, but kept us busy for a few weeks".

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#199

Post by exodust »

cname wrote: post #148
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't think of anything that's particularly constructive to say, but I find your comment... irritating. It's likely that you are simply wrong. It sounds like you are personally upset that your creation was modified by other developers who may have more experience. If you haven't had the experience of maintaining multiple projects with some kind of consistency between them, then adding "complexity" (unit tests? real…

> "I can't think of anything that's particularly constructive to say..."

I stopped reading after that, just sayin.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#200

Post by pjmlp »

userbinator wrote: post #133
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…

There's a very suitable verb for describing this process: "enterprisify" This trend toward "frameworkfulness" probably started with OOP and Java in the mid 90s, and spread from there. Fortunately they seem to be realising the ridiculousness and gradually getting out of that mindset, but unfortunately other developer cultures like JS are now headed in that direction.

> This trend toward "frameworkfulness" probably started with OOP and Java in the mid 90s, and spread from there.

No, it was already there with Smalltalk and C++, but millennials seem to have missed that part and everyone bashes Java.

Post reply on HN