Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Web Starter Kit

developers.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#41

Post by anigbrowl »

degenerate wrote: post #23
philtar wrote: post #18

Looking at this page, and reading the comments here on HN, I'm glad I'm not a web developer. What a mess.

The 'mess' is like trying to buy a car. Once you get through all the annoying sales pitches, conflicting opinions, dealer gotchas, options, and mental monthly payments... you're finally in your new car and happily rolling along, learning how it works and making it fit with your life. Then as time passes you see all your friends and strangers driving X, you hear about Y, and you really wish you could get your hands on…

This is not a good recipe for long-term stability or usability. Doing even simple things is horribly and unnecessarily complicated and feature creep is inevitable. This doesn't lead to innovation, just accumulation.

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#42

Post by anigbrowl »

kuschku wrote: post #30
degenerate wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'mess' is like trying to buy a car. Once you get through all the annoying sales pitches, conflicting opinions, dealer gotchas, options, and mental monthly payments... you're finally in your new car and happily rolling along, learning how it works and making it fit with your life. Then as time passes you see all your friends and strangers driving X, you hear about Y, and you really wish you could get your hands on…

The issue with web development is that there’s no good, or working solutions. Every car that’s up for offer is missing something. One of them can only be driven if you control every single circuit manually, the next is missing an engine, and another has no windows, roof, doors, or seats. Each of the tools would probably be useful for some purpose in a way, but with the entire toolbox of JS utils combined, it’s just a…

So true. The other advantage of a stable environment is better tools. Having got into node based programming years ago the idea of going back to writing code for anything structural just fills me with horror. People love to talk about modularity but writing everything in code is like connecting everything up using a soldering iron.

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#43

Post by deanCommie »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #33

I'd advocate most people avoid this if their intention is to write an app. As an alternative, I'd suggest evaluating create-react-app [0] or preact-cli [1] if you're looking for something lighter. The lack of testing setup and module support in this kit feels like a regression, although I'll concede that it really depends on your use-case. I've been using webpack [2] for a few years and wouldn't willingly go back to…

As someone who last web-dev'd in the day of ASP.NET MVC, GWT, jQuery, and backbone.js, this post reads like one of those modern JS development satires [0]

I know you meant well, and this is just the state of the world, but I can't help but feel like a dinosaur just because I spent the last 5 years focusing on server/cloud infrastructure.

Is there any hope for someone like me if I ever want to step back into it? I ask sincerely. It seems like every best-practice framework's compelling proposition these days is that it's "like XYZ, but fixes this obscure edge case", where XYZ is something that only came out 2 years ago, so I never used it, never mind understood properly.

[0] https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2...

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#46

Post by tootie »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #33

I'd advocate most people avoid this if their intention is to write an app. As an alternative, I'd suggest evaluating create-react-app [0] or preact-cli [1] if you're looking for something lighter. The lack of testing setup and module support in this kit feels like a regression, although I'll concede that it really depends on your use-case. I've been using webpack [2] for a few years and wouldn't willingly go back to…

Isn't create-react-app something of a dead end? It's designed to not be modified. It also doesn't support SSR. I'd lean towards starting with Electrode.

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#47

Post by pavlov »

deanCommie wrote: post #43
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #33

I'd advocate most people avoid this if their intention is to write an app. As an alternative, I'd suggest evaluating create-react-app [0] or preact-cli [1] if you're looking for something lighter. The lack of testing setup and module support in this kit feels like a regression, although I'll concede that it really depends on your use-case. I've been using webpack [2] for a few years and wouldn't willingly go back to…

As someone who last web-dev'd in the day of ASP.NET MVC, GWT, jQuery, and backbone.js, this post reads like one of those modern JS development satires [0] I know you meant well, and this is just the state of the world, but I can't help but feel like a dinosaur just because I spent the last 5 years focusing on server/cloud infrastructure. Is there any hope for someone like me if I ever want to step back into it? I ask…

The way to step back into it is to ignore the library froth, pick something that looks understandable from the principles you already know, and build something useful.

Many people spend X hours a day obsessing about whether css-turd-polish.io is better than Sassy.js v4. If you spend those hours working on something productive, you're automatically ahead.

The framework churn is increasingly a perpetual motion machine for conference talks. Don't go to conferences and you won't feel like you're missing anything.

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#48

Post by StevePerkins »

mattashii wrote: post #31
tauntz wrote: post #16

> Powered by Material Design Lite That's a curious choice. MDL isn't being developed further and is being replaced by "Material Components for the web" https://github.com/material-components/material-components-w... From https://github.com/google/material-design-lite : Limited support Material Design Lite is now in limited support, with development having moved to the Material Components for the web repository. No fu…

> Last updated February 9, 2017. https://github.com/google/web-starter-kit > Last release (v0.6.5) on December 13th That choice is not that curious if you correct for project age.

Seriously... this HTML/JavaScript template is FOUR MONTHS OLD, for God's sake! Might as well be jQuery.

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#49

Post by aocvr »

tootie wrote: post #46
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #33

I'd advocate most people avoid this if their intention is to write an app. As an alternative, I'd suggest evaluating create-react-app [0] or preact-cli [1] if you're looking for something lighter. The lack of testing setup and module support in this kit feels like a regression, although I'll concede that it really depends on your use-case. I've been using webpack [2] for a few years and wouldn't willingly go back to…

Isn't create-react-app something of a dead end? It's designed to not be modified. It also doesn't support SSR. I'd lean towards starting with Electrode.

create-react-app offers an 'eject' option, which makes all the configuration visible and adjustable. Ejecting can be used as a starting point from which you can further modify and customize a project.

Re: Google Web Starter Kit

#50

Post by rebootthesystem »

deanCommie wrote: post #43
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #33

I'd advocate most people avoid this if their intention is to write an app. As an alternative, I'd suggest evaluating create-react-app [0] or preact-cli [1] if you're looking for something lighter. The lack of testing setup and module support in this kit feels like a regression, although I'll concede that it really depends on your use-case. I've been using webpack [2] for a few years and wouldn't willingly go back to…

As someone who last web-dev'd in the day of ASP.NET MVC, GWT, jQuery, and backbone.js, this post reads like one of those modern JS development satires [0] I know you meant well, and this is just the state of the world, but I can't help but feel like a dinosaur just because I spent the last 5 years focusing on server/cloud infrastructure. Is there any hope for someone like me if I ever want to step back into it? I ask…

Chasing technology is a huge mistake. Your end users, your clients, where the money comes from, could not care less if you are coding your website in Visual Basic (is that even possible?). Nope. They are after a solution to a problem. That is ALL they care about. Nothing else. Do not waste your time with this ever-repeating nonsense of chasing the shinny objects.

That doesn't mean you stop learning. It does mean you inject a slow low pass filter in your life and don't react to every little movement in technology. You can learn about them while realizing your end users don't care and, in general terms, these technologies have no material advantages in delivering what customers are after.

Engineers are not business people. Do no follow what someone with no business experience says because you'll find yourself jumping from tech to tech and no servicing your customers.

Post reply on HN