You probably don't need a JavaScript framework • Hacker News Board

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#111

Post by tobltobs » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

gjolund wrote: post #63

I'm really glad I don't have to work with people who think like this. You don't NEED a framework, just like you could theoretically build a car from scratch. If your app isn't complex enough to merit using a framework, then you aren't really building something worth talking about. Frameworks do exactly what they say, provide a common framework for your team to work off of while they build a complex application. I fee…

"I feel like people who say "just use the dom" don't actually have enough experience to know why that is such a bad idea."

"You people really are kidding yourselves. I feel bad for whoever is paying your salaries."

"Honestly, it just sounds like you are bad at managing your own software projects"

"I'm really glad I don't have to work with people who think like this."

"Both are signs of inexperience."

"I guess I won't be hiring you then."

------

If your coding skills are as big as your mouth you must be a kind of coding god.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#112

Post by dwg » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

To begin, React isn't a framework. It’s a tool. Would you compare a table saw to a workshop? That doesn’t make sense and neither does comparing React to a framework—especially if you’re saying you don’t need one.

Furthermore, using a virtual DOM is not the purpose of React. Virtual DOM is merely a part of how React works. People don't buy cars to get an engine. They buy cars to get around places. People don't use React to get a virtual DOM engine. People use React to make building and maintaining apps easier.

Let’s say you decide you’re smarter than everyone who worked on React or some other library, and you can build your app without them. Great, if you’re building a small app this is probably just fine. Scale your app up, however, and you’re going to end up with a framework anyway. The only difference is that it will be your own framework, and chances are it will be difficult to understand, hard to maintain, and full of bugs, and you may even be stuck with it because of how much it would cost to change.

Using libraries, or even frameworks, is how you leverage the collective intelligence of dozen, hundreds, or even thousands of very smart minds (a few of whom might even be smarter than you). Especially proven ones with many successful projects using them.

You’re welcome to give this up to be a cowboy, but me: I’ve been there, thought I was that smart, and realized how much better off I am by not trying to reinvent the wheel every time.

The rest of the article mentions other points which don’t seem particularly related to framework decisions to me at all, so I’ll let them be.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#113

Post by samtho » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

kup0 wrote: post #103

I don't think frameworks and tools are the problem. I have dealt with the same frustrations about these huge tool-chains but I've always seen it all boil down to one key point: the problem is not the tools- it is not choosing the right tools for the project at hand. Then you get websites and apps that really bloat up because of the overkill or poor choices. There's the whole side issue of progressive enhancement and/…

Its ROI. For any new company starting off, they will quickly realize that all non-js agents are either bots or very low-powered machines. With many new companies, who base their entire existence on the web and customers' ability to access it, these two groups are not their target audience so why bother making a JS free, static site when you don't need those customers' business?

On the flip side, government sites are (or at least should be) developed with a high degree of accessibility in mind due to laws that typically prevent anything less. Their reach is much higher and their audience is potentially every citizen in their jurisdiction.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#114

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

Touche wrote: post #18

takno wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you may well end up writing one, but it's likely to be a fraction of the size. My current entire app is running at half the size of jquery, which is getting me awesomely quick page loads even on poor mobile connections. The dev time was longer, but not crazily longer, and the surface area for testing is somewhat smaller

In reality JavaScript size means very little when a single image might be 500k.

You shouldn't be serving 500k images to mobile users.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#115

Post by tobltobs » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

gjolund wrote: post #100

coldtea wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Complexity requires structure in order to be maintainable. Structure is the job of the lead programmer(s), not some third party framework developer. And it should suit the specific job. It's as if we forgotten that programs have to be designed with an overall architecture based on our business, and instead just download off the shelve scaffoldings and try to adapt our business logic around their design. You know th…

>Complexity requires structure in order to be maintainable. A competent lead programmer will choose a structure that adheres to common best practices and is maintained by a community. Also known as a framework. >If you don't understand then you are either writing huge amounts of documentation and test code for your custom solution, or you are acknowledging that your app will be unmaintainable once you leave your posi…

Are you are replying to yourself? You are quoting yourself.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#116

Post by evan_ » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

This looks like a great blueprint to spend way too much time writing an app that is un-maintainable and only works in a few browsers.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#117

Post by Svenskunganka » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

I apologize for not adressing your concerns with the post earlier, I've just added an update to the bottom of the post with some replies to some comments I've read.

Please keep in mind that my intent is not to mock you or your framework of choice. My goal with this post is to try to inspire you to try building something with the native DOM and Web API and see for yourself. Some may enjoy it, others may not. And if you feel comfortable with your current way of building your web applications with a framework, that's completely fine.

Also, please keep in mind that I cannot address every use-case in a single post. As much as I'd like to, that's going to take way too much time.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#118

Post by dwg » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:15 AM UTC

edejong wrote: post #43

I still remember doing a PoC for an end-to-end secure messaging app with web support, around 3 years back. It was written in plain JS with jquery and one or two libs for crypto bolted on. Simple, easy, but not very maintenance friendly written. Took around 2000 lines all in all. One of four clients (Android, iOS and a bot framework in Scala/Java). Then the web-boys came in to rewrite my... well, contraption. In came…

Why was it rewritten, because it was difficult to maintain? It sounds like whomsoever rewrote it failed to make it more maintainable, then I would say that is a failure on the part of the person than on the concept of a framework.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#119

Post by threatofrain » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:16 AM UTC

takno wrote: post #9

WalterSear wrote: post #3

You don't need one, but if you don't eventually adopt one, you'll end up writing one.

Sure, you may well end up writing one, but it's likely to be a fraction of the size. My current entire app is running at half the size of jquery, which is getting me awesomely quick page loads even on poor mobile connections. The dev time was longer, but not crazily longer, and the surface area for testing is somewhat smaller

There are cases where some companies have the business justification to work on writing their own frameworks, like with Facebook. They can use up human resources to really focus on latency at the cost of other metrics.

Other companies juggle their priorities differently, and would probably not want to focus their efforts on replacing React, which has a small API, constantly-updated documentation, a team that responds to issues, and widespread attention and thus lots of discourse. I also think the React layer abstracts away complexity, trading total lines of code for cognitive easiness. Some teams have the business justification for doing things their way -- but I think most don't.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#120

Post by formula_ninguna » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:16 AM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #3

You don't need one, but if you don't eventually adopt one, you'll end up writing one.

That's funny. But at least you might not need the whole framework, just a part of it. And that part you'll end up writing youself. Why not? You'll understand javascript better. Most developers aren't able to write a single line without a framework.