You probably don't need a JavaScript framework • Hacker News Board

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#351

Post by ycombinatorMan » Tue, May 03, 2016, 6:48 AM UTC

MustardTiger wrote: post #322

morgante wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the opposite of reality. Users hate it. Overwhelmingly. You have absolutely no evidence of that. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that SPAs increase engagement. You're living in an echo chamber if you actually thing the average user would like to return to the web of the 90s. They love things like the infinite scroll on Facebook, Google instant search, Slack, Trello, etc. If you think the huge com…

An echo chamber? Where? Show me this echo chamber. The echo chamber is the one repeating the same baseless nonsense you are. And where on earth do you get a "political agenda" from pointing out the fact that user testing shows javascript messes are bad?

I love infinite scroll. I don't count though, hm?

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#352

Post by ycombinatorMan » Tue, May 03, 2016, 6:53 AM UTC

sod wrote: post #282

A) There are people that love frameworks. B) There are the ones that don't. The type A ones just gave up to the complexity and bury it with foreign frameworks. The latter ones invent their own ecosystem. And are very productive with it. It's fast and beautiful. And you know every screw and bolt. There is a feature request? No problem, you know immediately how to solve it. I know many of them. And nearly all of them a…

So people who don't use frameworks are better programmers than people who do... because... ?

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#353

Post by MustardTiger » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:11 PM UTC

ycombinatorMan wrote: post #351

MustardTiger wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An echo chamber? Where? Show me this echo chamber. The echo chamber is the one repeating the same baseless nonsense you are. And where on earth do you get a "political agenda" from pointing out the fact that user testing shows javascript messes are bad?

I love infinite scroll. I don't count though, hm?

I love peach pie. What does this have to do with anything?

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#354

Post by dwg » Fri, May 06, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

ak39 wrote: post #226

dwg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was it rewritten, because it was difficult to maintain? It sounds like whomsoever rewrote it failed to make it more maintainable, then I would say that is a failure on the part of the person than on the concept of a framework.

Aren't frameworks supposed to prevent this type of thing exactly? If there's no guarantee, how do we ensure that we don't create an even bigger nightmare code structure when using frameworks? This risk has to be understood before framework choices are made.

> Aren't frameworks supposed to prevent this type of thing exactly?

I'm generalizing, but frameworks reduce program complexity when applied in a thoughtful way to a suitable problem space. If you adopt a framework that isn't suitable to your particular problem, or adopt one that is suitable but fail to learn to use it properly, you will probably increase complexity.

When I said that it was a failure on the part of the person, I meant that there is a possibility that the people responsible for rewriting probably did a bad job at choosing a framework for their problem (perhaps it was too big and complicated?), or maybe they chose a suitable framework but didn't do a good job of implementing it (perhaps they tried to code in their old style?).

> If there's no guarantee, how do we ensure that we don't create an even bigger nightmare code structure when using frameworks? This risk has to be understood before framework choices are made.

This is obvious and I don't believe I made any argument to the contrary. Just like choosing any tool, one must understand it first to make good use of it.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#355

Post by elmigranto » Wed, May 11, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #315

elmigranto wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switch "most popular" to "your site" and it will probably change user's desire to wait for it.

Yeah, that's true. Also what I left out in my argument is that while popular already, they still might get increased in traffic if they were lighter.

What's more relevant at Facebook's scale is dollars saved per kilobyte shrinked. Because majority of its users will tolerate almost anything at this point, including apps that crash randomly to measure loyalty.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#356

Post by inspiraller » Thu, May 12, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

I agree. I enjoy developing the quickest route from a-z. I can write javascript. I know the dom, that its quicker to update one large dom container than it is to update many smaller elements. I have worked with and understand ajax, that rewriting a dom node before unbinding any events creates browser memory leaks causing it to eventually crash. I would not know these things if i had coded with the prescribed framework. If the argument for using them is to have team coding standards then have team coding standards. The framework creates its own problems.