Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of JavaScript Frameworks

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of JavaScript Frameworks
tomdale.net

"Of course Mr. Fuchs is able to tell you which JavaScript library will precisely match your requirements -- his job is writing JavaScript libraries!" [Emphasis, and presumed outrage, his.]

Come now. That's simply false, and if you think about it, silly. "He writes open source frameworks for free so he's biased against open source frameworks"? Really? Thomas has never sold a JavaScript framework or written one for hire, and his libraries are MIT-licensed. It's not his "job". Furthermore, Prototype.js and Scriptaculous are not micro-frameworks. So Thomas Fuchs is arguing against major examples of his own work. Yup, must be some kind of evil hidden agenda.

I called Tom out about this misrepresentation on Twitter and he probably changed it by now, but I for one think it's important to know about the history of such things.

Other nitpicks:

Mr. Fuchs has apparently never heard of dependency hell. Very logical argument, that. Way to slyly insinuate he's a bad and inexperienced programmer, without actually introducing any actual facts.

Dustin Diaz has done a great job of putting together many of these micro-frameworks with Ender.js, but as a curator, he has to rely on the original author if he wants to make a change.

Really? How is that a counter-argument?

I'd be very surprised if someone has read Thomas' little essay on micro-frameworks and genuinely come away with the idea that what he really supports is taking a bunch of other people's OSS projects and mushing them together with an integration layer.

The whole point about micro-frameworks is you don't have to make them "go together". You wield them individually like scalpels instead of spinning them en masse like Edward Scissorhands.

There are a LOT of problems with an undertaking like Ender.js, but that's not the fault of micro-frameworks "not being made to work together." It's the fault of doing something that, from the outset, is fairly expected to be more trouble than it's worth - however noble it may be.

One might argue that an integration layer that hooks up a bunch of other micro-frameworks is no better than -- and in a lot of ways, worse, and more complex, and less reliable -- than a monolithic library. So I call "red herring" on the Ender.js argument. It doesn't really support Tom's attack on Thomas' article against monolithic frameworks, because it is one... just made from parts, like Frankenstein.

I could go on, but I'm even boring myself at this point.

What I'd like to know is: Why is the suggestion "You don't need all that code all the time" considered so radical & threatening?

--

And yup, full disclosure: I married Thomas Fuchs, but I used Prototype & Scriptaculous for well over a year before I ever met him.

https://github.com/madrobby/emile/pull/7

While you already argue against something like ender.js being valid, Tom's argument, which preceded your comment (and which seemed confirmed by Thomas' post, imo), was that including emile in Ender.js has actually been a pain because he couldn't get Thomas to answer him, let alone change something for him. I believe the irony that was being pointed out was that Thomas then gave ender a shout-out after ignoring it (from an outside and likely wrong perspective).

I say all of this in more of a objective bystander, rather than someone who wants to interject his own opinion on the actual topic. I don't need that kind of stress.

Full disclosure: I found myself quite attracted to Thomas the few times I met him. I think it's the accent.