Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room

"But I would never, ever, begin a new business that depends solely on Angular to survive. Why? Because Google doesn't need it. It didn't blink to give up GWT, it didn't have to think twice to decide to rewrite Angular 2 in an incompatible way to Angular 1, and so on."

This is just wrong - almost 3/4 of Google's web apps depend on Angular from what I have heard from multiple Googlers. If a rare instance where an Angular release failure occurs, it shuts down Google's development process dramatically & costs millions in productivity.

That rewrite is aimed at making Angular vastly improved - that doesn't equate to giving up on Angular, that is a poor analogy. In fact, Google decided to start investing vastly more resources into the Angular team, rapidly hiring and growing the team into a proper one, as opposed to it being a pet project of the Adwords team. In the next year or two, that ambition will bear much more fruit as mindshare grows with the realization of the technical problems solved & improved upon by ng2 - if React doesn't gear up to evolve, we'll probably see either a lot of defection to Angular, or a competitor that disagrees with the complexity that Angular introduces appearing to swallow React, just as React has done the same to grab disenchanted Backbone/Angular/etc. users.

Otherwise, the article does a good job explaining a lot of things, but it is very defeatist, as if it is futile to try to improve upon things. I can't say I agree with that sentiment, it goes against the heart of research/trailblazing/experimentation/etc.

It also makes some weak assertions, such as "One rarely benefits from big bang rewrites from scratch.", which is a generality being applied to every single situation, a fallacy. Confusing commonly accepted wisdom in development with an overextension of their meaning can lead to bad conclusions, as well as bad decision making.

The article you linked is pure gold ;thanks for sharing!

I'm sure I'm going to get piled on here, but whatever. I don't understand why those who spend most of their time writing web apps / CRUD apps focus so much on the tools they use to do it. "This framework's the best!" "No, this one is obviously better!" "My design pattern is better than your design pattern!"

I don't know, maybe I'm a 32 year old curmudgeon, but I just don't see this in my area. I work at a lower level; robotics, image processing/analysis, and general systems level stuff. We worry about what technologies we use for a given task as far as it impacts our design goals, i.e., "which technology is best suited for the job" (and there are more options nowadays than there used to be). Our customers couldn't care less about how we got there as long as the final product kicks ass.

Once we arrive at a conclusion we move on and spend the remaining 99% of development solving actual problems. Hard problems. Often times unsolved problems. Our number one priority is reliability and accuracy (ok, that's two priorities). Whether or not we used e.g. C++ or Python to do it is irrelevant. What matters is that we built a system which works as it is supposed to and was engineered correctly.

I don't understand this 'programming for programming's sake' mentality. At the end of the day these are just tools, not an end goal. Help me to understand.

> Help me to understand.

Human nature, maybe?

People seem to like to form groups based on some random similarity (supporting the same football team, driving the same car model, believing in the same religion, being of the same race, etc..) and start fighting the opposite groups.

My favorite example is the following trivia from the "Planet of the Apes" movie:

"During breaks in filming, actors made up as different ape species tended to hang out together, gorillas with gorillas, orangutans with orangutans, chimps with chimps. It wasn't required, it just naturally happened."

Let me explain. You are looking from the outside at a community which has a lot of issues around languages, tooling and frameworks for complex historical and technical reasons. E.g. Things that developed over long periods of time, like desktop apps, had to be rebuilt in the browser in a decade. Ask any desktop application developer how fun they think client side web dev is in comparison. And you are then assuming that the difficulties of this community are because they are immature and not as wise as you. Hope that clarifies things.