211–220 of 356 posts
Back then everyone on StackOverflow was still completely bought into the JQuery mission. I often see it when people don't fully understand something, they choose a framework.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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.
The best thing is to try and use minimal frameworks and libraries and justify every single one - Which I'm sure most devs already do. jQuery is still rather justifiable. Yes, you can replace functions with JavaScript today but you'll end up with similar looking functions.
I recently added Transit to animate using CSS3, the alternative would be to write each animation effect I use in CSS3 down to the duration! If I need to change the ease I spend 5x the time doing so - From a devs perspective no, just no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it" And if they all want to use it - let them use it. The productivity gained by agreeing on a framework usually outweighs the performance loss over the "best" solution. Yes, my native JS implementation of a gallery app is much faster than the React version (reviewed by an experienced React-dev and judged "good") but if that project g…
" I'd expect these devs to implement a feature quickly " Isn't that basic sin of software development - weighing speed of implementation (which is just a tiny part of the lifetime cost of software) over anything else. I'm not arguing against 'good enough', I just don't think this is a particularly strong argument for that. It's like surgeon not washing his hands and sterilizing his equipment because that way implemen…
EDIT, to make my point clear: The surgeon comparison is not valid because a surgeon deals with a much longer lifetime than not only the average but most software projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Using a JS framework like jQuery or Angular or React isn't even remotely similar to Enterprise Java Beans and all that nonsense. You must be joking.
jQuery: library. (Others: D3, knockout). Salient feature: does not impose code structure or organization of code modules.
Angular and React: frameworks. Salient feature: expects adherence to module separation and code structure protocol. Like other MVC frameworks.
EJB: platform. Salient feature: provides entire terra firma and attendant oxygen for the entire solution. Frameworks and libraries are used on platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A program?
I, too, did a double-take at the use of the word, but I looked it up, and it seems to be a valid usage. Various dictionaries define program merely as a "set of instructions," so, yeah, a library or framework counts as a program just as much as a separate process.
wikipedia: " collection of instructions that performs a specific task when executed by a computer "
We can do better than describing a JS Framework/Library, than calling it a program I guess.