321–330 of 629 posts
This entire post is peak boomer-meme. It's a rant because "new is bad." Heaven forbid they just stick with what they like and let everyone else churn. Their loves in native and PHP aren't going anywhere. Weird to see a "didn't have my coffee" moment make the front page.
90% of developers come from jQuery and WordPress world. Back then, they were using an existing framework and trying to reinvent the wheel on top of it.
These days, with changes in market, they are on the bandwagon of Next, Nuxt etc.
There are only 10% of fluent JavaScript engineers who know ins and out of the language and can understand and challenge various design patterns. Rest are just making six figure serving HTML, CSS hidden behind ultra complex frontend architecture.
We should be making things simpler. But instead we have continue to add complexity. And most of the time needlessly. Since the industry gravitate towards solutions to gain economy of scale. There is no turning back, or separate tools that only fits Google instead of 90% of the market.
I don't understand how can you diss Electron when you see something like VS Code or Atom. The benefits are clear. This software could grow plugin ecosystem vastly exceeding anything that was previously possible even after pouring millions of dollars into it. Electron is better than everything else by various engineering metrics. Just not RAM or CPU usage. And despite large RAM and CPU usage it manages to be way faste…
> I don't understand how can you diss Electron when you see something like VS Code or Atom. Because you also see things like https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/22900
You have multiple cores and all of them constantly do somehting when your computer is on. You have graphics processors that run code every frame which probably half of is bot strictly necessary.
Is the cpu load from blinking cursor good or necessary? Definitely not. Is it important? Mostly not when compared to all the benefits.
And this issue was resolved pretty effortlessly (if you omit trolling).
The secret is that it only takes one person to build a website/business.
Everyone working at big tech should create their own thing and create competition.
I had a meeting today with a "cybersecurity expert" who was consulting a big company that had no idea what a hash function was. Literally no idea, as in "never heard the term before". I explained the concept to her and she started referring to it as "encryption", I told her it wasn't encryption and she immediately started to debate me about that. Let that sink for a bit, she really thought she knew more than me about…
The author is fighting a strawman. Rather than engage with the specific problems these solutions were built to solve they dismissively regard them as just flavor of the week trends purely for the sake of chasing newness. This is true of the entire post, but I'll tackle just one since it's emblematic of my issues with all the rest: The argument for Electron and React Native isn't "it's modern", it's "it's much cheaper…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are web apps... open.spotify.com, discord.com, app.slack.com. Even vscode.dev. The desktop product is just a repackaging of the web app with perhaps more OS integrations. If you don't want the OS integrations, use the web app. Some are available as a PWA too, which provides a nice middle ground.
At least for VSCode, it's the other way around - the app was first, and even if it was always an Electron app, it was still designed and written for the desktop. It actually took some time and effort to port that to vscode.dev, which wasn't there at the beginning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what's offensive to the purist engineer mind. These aren't engineering decisions, they're business decisions (or maybe the closest thing you could call them would be "financial engineering" decisions). The best thing, by pure engineering criteria, is not what gets built. The best thing for the business is what gets built. In that context it's a complaint as old as the hills. ...and not specific to comp…
> These aren't engineering decisions, they're business decisions All engineering (including "real" ones like civil or mechanical) is about fitting your requirements within budgets. When one's building a skyscraper, you try to build it in a way that minimizes the cost while satisfying all requirements (it shouldn't fall down given such and such conditions, etc.) Engineering is largely the art of solving problems that…
- Someone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what's offensive to the purist engineer mind. These aren't engineering decisions, they're business decisions (or maybe the closest thing you could call them would be "financial engineering" decisions). The best thing, by pure engineering criteria, is not what gets built. The best thing for the business is what gets built. In that context it's a complaint as old as the hills. ...and not specific to comp…
Well it's a net negative for the end user, which should have been the priority for everyone involved, and what you're describing sounds like a corruption of this system. So I wouldn't call it an engineering thing, it seems far more general than that.
Indeed it is, however the end user is probably not the customer of the business. The business is serving its customers. Sometimes end user = customer. But often they are different sets of stakeholders with their own priorities. I'm not saying businesses go out of their way to piss off end users, but customer needs trump end user needs.