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

271–280 of 356 posts

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#271

Post by falcolas »

ak39 wrote: post #219
cname wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the difference between platforms, frameworks and libraries? Here's my attempt ... 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 at…

I boil it down to a terrible analogy of a framework being like a bad date: "Don't call me, I'll call you."

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#272

Post by falcolas »

ssmoot wrote: post #269
morgante wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't collectively decide to move rendering to the client side for no reason. It is unquestionably more complex to build a SPA than to have a traditional web app. We did it because users demand it. A SPA feels substantially faster and more reactive. Users notice. If Gmail used your approach, it never would have succeeded. > How does a LAMP/RAILS app provide search engines with indexable dynamic pages? Uh, through…

Most SPAs feel substantially slower IME. The users didn't demand this. They were perfectly happy when you delivered a website that performed a full-round trip in 50ms a decade ago containing more data than your average SPA can handle before choking on it. The users want it to work. They want it to be fast. They want it to be pretty. That's about it. I'm tired of hearing about why GMail succeeded. It's revisionist. GM…

Gmail was also originally a traditional webapp - in the early versions Javascript added to the experience, but there were still page transitions when viewing emails and composing new emails.

Opinion time: I miss that version. There's so many bells and whistles on Gmail now that I prefer to use a local mail client to logging in and attempting to work through all the clutter to do basic things like viewing and replying to emails.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#273

Post by lojack »

exodust wrote: post #199
cname wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's unfortunate, because the rest of his comment was relatively constructive.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#274

Post by bschwindHN »

coldtea wrote: post #172
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…

> and has a community of people working to make those components even better for YOUR USE CASE. How did the latter point derive from the former? Frameworks come with prepackaged components and it's usually their way or the highway. A framework might very well have a "community of people working to make those components even better" (period), but surely not "a community of people working to make those components even…

"I wouldn't hire you" is the quintessential Hacker News put down and I see it all the time. It's effectively saying "I disagree with you, and I want to make you feel bad by pretending I'm in a position of power over you."

Hilarious, and if a Hacker News bingo exists, it should be the free space.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#275

Post by maaaats »

mattmanser wrote: post #267
jlg23 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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're not a standard though. Everything's only a year old and gets replaced next year. Where's Backbone gone? Or Knockout? Or Handlebars? Is it NPM, Bower or a mix of the two? Or etc. etc. Are you writing coffeescript still, why not typescript? Did you make an app in Durandal? Haha! Time for Aurelia! Angular 1, one of the longer lived projects, is literally just being turned into a non-standard after a whole lifeti…

That doesn't invalidate the point, though. I'd rather maintain an old Backbone app, where I can read tutorials and search SO for answer, than some home-made framework.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#276

Post by jerf »

exodust wrote: post #191
jlg23 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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"."

I completely agree. Web people quite often commit to frameworks based on their marketing copy and maybe one guy they read on the internet saying "seems pretty AWESOME after I've played with it for two days!" and a testimonial or two.

Of course, I've seen development languages chosen that way, NoSQL databases chosen that way, "which Linux variant do we base our company on" chosen that way, bug trackers chosen that way, chat systems chosen that way, devops management chosen that way, VM and/or containerization chosen that way (or, indeed, people just declaring "we need containers" for what appears to be "because we aren't cool if we don't have them")... you know, this may not really be just a "web" thing....

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#277

Post by nilliams »

mattmanser wrote: post #267
jlg23 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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're not a standard though. Everything's only a year old and gets replaced next year. Where's Backbone gone? Or Knockout? Or Handlebars? Is it NPM, Bower or a mix of the two? Or etc. etc. Are you writing coffeescript still, why not typescript? Did you make an app in Durandal? Haha! Time for Aurelia! Angular 1, one of the longer lived projects, is literally just being turned into a non-standard after a whole lifeti…

Just want to be the counterpoint here. I've been building stuff at my last 2 jobs in Backbone (plus good OOP) for the last 5 years, and am only now considering a move to React or Vue, Vue being the conservative choice I may well go with. Not everyone jumps on the new frameworks just because.

The JS community is massive and very good at publicising their tools, so there are lots of (very visible) options, and it can give the impression that everyone is constantly switching tools, but that doesn't mean you actually have to.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#278

Post by neppo »

jerf wrote: post #276
exodust wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

"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"." I completely agree. Web people quite often commit to frameworks based on their marketing copy and maybe one guy they read on the internet saying "seems pretty AWESOME after I've played with it for two days!" and a testimonial or two. Of course, I've seen de…

Serious question: How else can you adopt a new technology, without investing significant amount of time?

It would be nice to exhaustively explore a tech before using it, but that's often simply not feasible due to lack of resources.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#279

Post by g4k »

sgmarks wrote: post #266
jlg23 wrote: post #202

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…

As an end user, I don't see that the framework craze has any positive impact. Many websites that were highly usable around 2004 have degraded into a bloated mess. Amazon is an example, but there are many others.

You can build proper apps and not just websites with the help of frameworks.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#280

Post by oblio »

ssmoot wrote: post #269
morgante wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't collectively decide to move rendering to the client side for no reason. It is unquestionably more complex to build a SPA than to have a traditional web app. We did it because users demand it. A SPA feels substantially faster and more reactive. Users notice. If Gmail used your approach, it never would have succeeded. > How does a LAMP/RAILS app provide search engines with indexable dynamic pages? Uh, through…

Most SPAs feel substantially slower IME. The users didn't demand this. They were perfectly happy when you delivered a website that performed a full-round trip in 50ms a decade ago containing more data than your average SPA can handle before choking on it. The users want it to work. They want it to be fast. They want it to be pretty. That's about it. I'm tired of hearing about why GMail succeeded. It's revisionist. GM…

Gmail also offered 1GB+ at a time when generous competitors offered 100MB.
Post reply on HN