Live data from Hacker News

Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

clairefro.dev

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, yes. The conventional wisdom these days is to do everything in React (or something similarly bloated). Because, you know, users just love seeing a bunch of grey boxes shimmer and dance on a white background for several seconds before the magic really starts to happen. So any exercise which demonstrates that there just might be an alternative to this philosophy should be applauded.

I don’t think this is the “conventional wisdom”!

I've just joined a team recently and had a chat with the head of product. We will work on a tiny internal app, it has 3 pages: sso login page, Excel template upload page where earlier uploaded templates are shown as a card and if you click on them it opens a dashboard: a map with markers, a bar and a pie chart. This is the whole thing.

This guy asked what we will use in the front-end. I said react and he was like "amazing, good job, it will be great" and the talked about we should always use react. So yes, there are places where react is used without question.

Also, we will use snowflake as a backend while indexing would make everything a lot faster and the budiness logic is done by 800+ line sql (stored procedure).

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#122
post #38
post #9

I think this is a pretty awesome statement. I'm always unreasonably pleased when I see a web page that embraces appropriate simplicity. > Coding a basic vanilla multi-page application (MPA) saves time in development (goodbye babel/postcss/SSR config) and builds are fast (this site builds in less than 1.2 seconds). I'd hope that builds would be on the order of a small pile of milliseconds! (or zero: a site like that c…

> why not do that server-side? Or bake it into the html and set up a bit of automation to replace the year with a new one every Jan 1. In this case I think I'd argue that the JS solution is the most simple to implement+maintain.

This is what Js is good at. It sucks for building actual systems but it's fine for small stuff

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#123
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A convoluted SPA" is fully orthogonal to React. If you're making a blog into a SPA, that's a you problem. It's been possible (and recommended for many things!) to just bake a static website with React and use JSX as a templating language for a long time.

It's also been possible for 30 years to do the same with languages like PHP, ColdFusion, etc, no build steps necessary, and HTML is your "templating language".

PHP pages absolutely have to be built/rendered.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#124
post #9

I think this is a pretty awesome statement. I'm always unreasonably pleased when I see a web page that embraces appropriate simplicity. > Coding a basic vanilla multi-page application (MPA) saves time in development (goodbye babel/postcss/SSR config) and builds are fast (this site builds in less than 1.2 seconds). I'd hope that builds would be on the order of a small pile of milliseconds! (or zero: a site like that c…

There's zero need to set up babel/postcss/SSR. Those have all been handled by frameworks for years and years.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#125
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The overhead involved in building a react app is nearly nil with all the tooling we have. All the tooling we have is exactly why React has an overhead which is far from nil. Every package goes through a period of changing its best practices, some go through multiple. Entire packages go in and out of season, seemingly depending on the phase of the moon. There's a new bundler every year, each with its own quirks. For…

It takes work to keep up with the latest-and-greatest in modern web frameworks. 100% agree. But if you're already doing that, because you work in the field, or are passionate about it, then that checkbox is ticked. I wouldn't do all that JUST to build a static portfolio, but if you already learnt and kept up with all of that stuff, then I still don't see why not use it.

Because in a professional setting the guy who takes over after you also has to know or learn whatever tech you chose.

I worked on a team maintaining solutions in React, Vue, angular, Svelte, JQuery and more. It sucked. Basically every task I ever did there was my first time doing that thing with that framework.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#126
Recently tried no framework, Jekyll, Next, Astro and finally SvelteKit. The only one I liked was SvelteKit.

Not interested in reinventing the wheel (no framework), dealing with lots of boilerplate and over-complication (Next/React) or using multiple UI libraries (Astro). SvelteKit is a fine balance between simple and providing enough functionality that allows me to focus on generating content with minimal friction.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#127

> I became a dev when everyone was hiring for React, so React is what I taught myself immediately after bootcamp in the scramble for a job A better education path (in a bootcamp, university, book, youtube, whatever) would start with the fundamentals and build it from the ground up... not the other way around. (I just realized how lucky I am for being taught in the best possible order, from the ground up... first the…

I disagree. It's like telling someone who is somewhat interested in building cars to learn how an engine works before having them on the ground playing with the actual car parts. The issue becomes not whether they'll learn, it's about whether they WANT to continue to learn. Most people when they want to start coding, would rather want to build cool things. And then later on, they'll naturally be more interested in the fundamentals.

I argue that this is why schools are terrible for teaching. They try and teach fundamentals without making kids interested in the topic first. As someone who taught many kids, the struggle is always making them interested, not the rate at which they learn.

I remember when I started programming, the worst advice i got was on stack overflow, that I should learn from this thick c++ textbook as a start... Wasted couple months on that book, where the concepts went through one ear and out the other, became extremely disinterested. Only until someone told me to just learn Javascript and build things was when I progressed and learned rapidly. Took me only a year after that to get a job with me becoming interested very quickly on learning fundamentals from there. If I kept learning from a book, it would've taken me several years before I got to even building. It's silly to assume someone who learns from the top down can't learn the fundamentals at some point.

Now I've learned game development and currently learning ai on the side. I've tried bottoms up learning many times, but it is incredibly slow to get my goals. Top down and learning fundamentals after you get your hands dirty has been the absolute fastest way for me to learn new topics. With bottoms up, while you may learn many of the basics, you also happen to learn a bunch of extraneous information that you may never use, and will forget because you don't use it.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#128

> I became a dev when everyone was hiring for React, so React is what I taught myself immediately after bootcamp in the scramble for a job A better education path (in a bootcamp, university, book, youtube, whatever) would start with the fundamentals and build it from the ground up... not the other way around. (I just realized how lucky I am for being taught in the best possible order, from the ground up... first the…

I disagree. It's like telling someone who is somewhat interested in building cars to learn how an engine works before having them on the ground playing with the actual car parts. The issue becomes not whether they'll learn, it's about whether they WANT to continue to learn. Most people when they want to start coding, would rather want to build cool things. And then later on, they'll naturally be more interested in th…

There's space between "read this giant c++ tome" and "you're good to go with a couple of months of React", quite a lot even.

From my experience with bootcamp people, it leaves them woefully underprepared. But my sample size is small: 3 people, 3 separate bootcamps, similar results. They knew one portion of react, no fundamentals.

And sadly a couple of them really took to using Copilot. So they don't know how to do what they're doing and couldn't explain their submitted code.

Just the worst of all worlds there. They were effectively incredibly expensive Copilot subscriptions (not to belittle them, they did that themselves)

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's like telling someone who is somewhat interested in building cars to learn how an engine works before having them on the ground playing with the actual car parts. The issue becomes not whether they'll learn, it's about whether they WANT to continue to learn. Most people when they want to start coding, would rather want to build cool things. And then later on, they'll naturally be more interested in th…

There's space between "read this giant c++ tome" and "you're good to go with a couple of months of React", quite a lot even. From my experience with bootcamp people, it leaves them woefully underprepared. But my sample size is small: 3 people, 3 separate bootcamps, similar results. They knew one portion of react, no fundamentals. And sadly a couple of them really took to using Copilot. So they don't know how to do wh…

definitely.

I just think for some, bottoms up learning has quite some disadvantages and was an approach that I've used for a long time with okay results. It would get me to where I wanted to be...but it takes way too long sometimes.

Of course there are people like you mentioned though who only do top down learning but just never go into learning the fundamentals ever, which is another problem in its own right.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also been possible for 30 years to do the same with languages like PHP, ColdFusion, etc, no build steps necessary, and HTML is your "templating language".

PHP pages absolutely have to be built/rendered.

I think the distinction is that PHP is interpreted in real time most often. So there is rarely a separate build step.
Post reply on HN