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

Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

blog.bitovi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#11

Post by slippyt »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #4

The only thing you lose from a non-evolving framework is the new features and bug-fixes they provide. You can fork it and fix the bugs yourselves, and losing the new features is kind of whatever - it had enough to convince you to use it in the first place. As long as you're using the best tool for the job you have now, you'll probably be fine.

You can rewrite an app instead of maintaining it for years, in which case choosing a non-evolving framework is perfectly fine. Over time, this approach doesn't fit very well into an agile development methodology. Choosing a non-evolving framework almost guarantees that your app will become a "legacy" app one day.

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#12

Post by keithwhor »

slippyt wrote: post #8
keithwhor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider vanilla JS before jQuery. ;) Frameworks are useful abstractions for getting a product shipped in a reasonable timeframe. At some point, in your growth as a developer, you should understand how to implement things in your language of choice from first principles. However, "ship it" is not necessarily a conducive mantra to learning the intricacies of a language, design patterns, et cetera. On top of that, it's…

> They substantially lower the barrier to entry for creating product. It goes further than this: a good framework can lower the barrier to writing maintainable, modular code. Sometimes people just need a nudge to follow good practices.

Yeah, but this can be a crapshoot. ;)

Many JS frameworks enforce their own brand of modularity (complete with boilerplate) that isn't transferrable to other projects, frameworks or languages.

They don't necessarily teach you how to write modular code in general, just how to write modules within their architecture. There's a difference.

Edit: Not to say there isn't value in introducing a newbie developer to modules. Just not all frameworks are created equal. :)

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#13

Post by hughw »

keithwhor wrote: post #12
slippyt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They substantially lower the barrier to entry for creating product. It goes further than this: a good framework can lower the barrier to writing maintainable, modular code. Sometimes people just need a nudge to follow good practices.

Yeah, but this can be a crapshoot. ;) Many JS frameworks enforce their own brand of modularity (complete with boilerplate) that isn't transferrable to other projects, frameworks or languages. They don't necessarily teach you how to write modular code in general, just how to write modules within their architecture . There's a difference. Edit: Not to say there isn't value in introducing a newbie developer to modules.…

e.g. Angular

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#15

Post by TomSawyer »

untog wrote: post #10

As a counterpoint: is your JS webapp really going to live, in its current form, for 5 years? Experience has taught me that there have been enough shifts - to mobile, especially - that betting in the long term like this might not be worth it. If you've structured your app well, the front-end JS is separated from the backend APIs, etc. etc. - a rewrite of that is not a rewrite of the entire app. So if React speeds your…

"Continued innovation matters more than the current set of features."

I think it's taken as a given that your app won't be sitting still for five years. The point of the longevity argument is that you won't have to rewrite regularly so your app will have a chance to make it to five years. Check out the team velocity chart under "Making a Good Bet."

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#16

Post by sanderjd »

untog wrote: post #10

As a counterpoint: is your JS webapp really going to live, in its current form, for 5 years? Experience has taught me that there have been enough shifts - to mobile, especially - that betting in the long term like this might not be worth it. If you've structured your app well, the front-end JS is separated from the backend APIs, etc. etc. - a rewrite of that is not a rewrite of the entire app. So if React speeds your…

I don't think "the backend APIs, etc. etc." are typically the things with longevity, either, as very few of them do much of anything with real novelty or complexity. It's the customer relationships, brand awareness, domain expertise, and operational investments that last. Expect to change all code frequently, and focus on building a strong business for that code to serve.

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#19

Post by matthewbauer »

Why do frameworks need to innovate? I'd much rather have a framework that releases fixes than one that "innovates often". Frameworks should start out innovative and slow down. Things change too fast to expect an "innovative framework" to be backwards compatable.

Re: Longevity in JavaScript Frameworks

#20

Post by k__ »

untog wrote: post #10

As a counterpoint: is your JS webapp really going to live, in its current form, for 5 years? Experience has taught me that there have been enough shifts - to mobile, especially - that betting in the long term like this might not be worth it. If you've structured your app well, the front-end JS is separated from the backend APIs, etc. etc. - a rewrite of that is not a rewrite of the entire app. So if React speeds your…

Coming from vanilla JS to ExtJS to Ember to React I can also say, that the frameworks also improved development speed. So reimplementing an app isn't that big of a problem.
Post reply on HN