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

You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

slack-files.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 356 posts

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#201

Post by ewjordan »

mrlatinos wrote: post #94
mwfunk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you (and I thought it was a thoughtful post), but I could totally see somebody interpreting "web-boy" as some sort of weird emasculating epithet a la "fanboi". On the Internet it's super easy to take offense at things that weren't intended to offend, in fact some people seem to thrive on it.

I think he's referring to all of hipsters who don't really understand what they're using but they're using it because it's hip. Might offend some, but people shouldn't be so quick to hop on a bandwagon and go wrecking working code.

It was prototype code, OP said that it was unmaintainable, and complained about, among other things, the "web-boys" adding unit tests - I'm not a 100% coverage zealot or anything, but adding some tests is not exactly hipster shit, it's a perfectly justifiable step when taking a prototype messaging app into production, especially if you have time in the schedule.

This does not sound to me like they hopped on a bandwagon and wrecked working code, it sounds like they were trying to bring some fast and dirty code that they didn't like the structure of closer to a style that they were familiar with, which is reasonable.

Of course we don't know any real details, maybe the web boys really were a bunch of copypasta idiots that messed it all up - I've seen this scenario play out both ways, and the one thing that's for sure is that prototype engineers are always skeptical of work that other people do on their babies, whether they do it well or not.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#202

Post by jlg23 »

exodust wrote: post #191
jlg23 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate to your experience but you, just as me, seem not to be a typical front-end developer - the "web-boys" (a term which probably got you the down-votes) on the other hand are. If one asks them why they do things the way they do them, they usually have a coherent answer and are happy to explain it. As someone else pointed out in this thread, a great advantage of established frameworks is that they provide a c…

> "They did invest lots of time to learn about all those tools and libraries" Unfortunately that claim doesn't hold up to what I suspect is happening most of the time. At least in my experience at work I've seen tech leads or someone similar introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it". One case in particular, Angular was chosen and turned out not to be suitable - it ran very…

> introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it"

And if they all want to use it - let them use it. The productivity gained by agreeing on a framework usually outweighs the performance loss over the "best" solution. Yes, my native JS implementation of a gallery app is much faster than the React version (reviewed by an experienced React-dev and judged "good") but if that project goes public and other people have to work on it I'll be damned if I make them learn my way of doing things. I'd expect these devs to implement a feature quickly and that means they use the framework they are most comfortable with. If it is good enough, it is good enough.

Aiming for perfection killed way too many projects, accepting that the productive path is not always the nicest or cleanest (according to some arbitrary metric) is what makes projects succeed. e.g.: Writing perl code is definitely not the best thing to do, performance wise (when counting clock cycles), but it does (did) allow some folks to be incredibly successful. See this awesome essay of this very site's founder: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#203

Post by eggy »

gjolund wrote: post #134
eggy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'simple people' as opposed to? I think people are coming down really hard on the article, and I found it to be light-hearted, and simply asking people to revisit where we're at. He doesn't call for anybody to stop using their frameworks. I am studying Erlang/LFE. I chose LFE over Elixir (I know it is not a framework), since I like Lisp rather than the Ruby-like syntax of Elixir, and because one of the creators of Erl…

Nobody brings in a framework out of hope that it will lead to them getting a job at said sponsors company. If they do they are very very misled. People choose a framework because they want to benefit from the R&D done at said company, and avoid sinking similar R&D costs into their product. I don't find happiness when my neighbors "cow dies" (I like that metaphor), but it does pay the bills, and that makes me happy. I…

>p.s. try breaking up your wall of text in future posts, it makes your response really difficult to read.

I normally do. See my other reply in this thread below.

I'll admit I was first set off by your seemingly condescending remark of 'simple people...'; I should know better. And not to get into too much of an OT style/usage thread, but the use of 'said' could be removed from your sentences as they are written. It is popular in legal writing as an abbreviation for 'aforesaid' or 'aforementioned', but also comes off as an affectation when used unnecessarily.

My point about some people bringing in, or championing a framework for a freelance gig, is that sometimes it is done to get some paid time learning that framework for future jobs. I think is it is disingenuous to dismiss that factor. As a senior manager and director, I have seen people let their personal goals bias their decision making in all types of business.

I still don't think the article was against using frameworks. I think it was about questioning or revisiting your reasons for choosing them.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#204

Post by exodust »

gjolund wrote: post #147
mikegioia wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to engage you on what you do, but you need to re-read some of the comments you've made. A lot of it is too hostile / oddly opinionated to be taken seriously, regardless of message. Whatever it is, it's not good communication.

I am not an evangelist, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest in this thread. If people choose not to listen to what I have to say it has no impact on me at all. I will continue making a living off their mistakes.

> a resume full of happy returning clients

You mean the people you refereed to as lacking technical expertise that you profit from? "Happy client" does not equal "superior code". Often clients will be happy just seeing the page load.

You implied earlier that a be-spoke js app by definition is spaghetti, poorly documented and generally inferior. I can't subscribe to that idea. I've seen the reverse as true also.

Risk of failure is what everyone wants to avoid. Another risk to avoid... Mediocrity. MVP is mediocre by definition, and the quickest way there is to slap a few frameworks on top of each other. Bells and whistles yet more.

I suppose striking the balance is what matters, and "right tool" and all that. But the right tool could indeed be a be-spoke app.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#205

Post by catnaroek »

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…

> If your app isn't complex enough to merit using a framework, then you aren't really building something worth talking about.

This isn't true. There is value in simplifying the problem at hand to the point where you don't need fancy tools to solve it. Not always possible, of course...

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#206

Post by exodust »

jlg23 wrote: post #202
exodust wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They did invest lots of time to learn about all those tools and libraries" Unfortunately that claim doesn't hold up to what I suspect is happening most of the time. At least in my experience at work I've seen tech leads or someone similar introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it". One case in particular, Angular was chosen and turned out not to be suitable - it ran very…

> introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it" And if they all want to use it - let them use it. The productivity gained by agreeing on a framework usually outweighs the performance loss over the "best" solution. Yes, my native JS implementation of a gallery app is much faster than the React version (reviewed by an experienced React-dev and judged "good") but if that project g…

Good point. Team unity and shared understanding of the methods, I'm all for that.

Personally I consider everything and don't rule anything out. I wouldn't rule out be-spoke is my main argument.

It's just that, you know, life can be more rewarding if you not only aim for perfection or near-perfection, but achieve it. There's a philosophical angle here that may be more suited to the start-ups thinking and dreaming big and original, vs the company who just wants "something that works/MVP".

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#207

Post by vectorpush »

codeisawesome wrote: post #176
dwg wrote: post #112

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 Rea…

But the author has already tried to cover that aspect: > I understand that React is only the view-layer, but in reality many of you are using things like Redux with it - along with other plugins. The result of that is a pretty heavy application.

I don't think that counts as covering it. Redux is very simple. The entire API surface is like 6 methods and it's not difficult to understand everything that it's doing for you.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#208

Post by fsloth »

jlg23 wrote: post #202
exodust wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They did invest lots of time to learn about all those tools and libraries" Unfortunately that claim doesn't hold up to what I suspect is happening most of the time. At least in my experience at work I've seen tech leads or someone similar introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it". One case in particular, Angular was chosen and turned out not to be suitable - it ran very…

> introduce frameworks without so much as "apparently it's quite good, so let's use it" And if they all want to use it - let them use it. The productivity gained by agreeing on a framework usually outweighs the performance loss over the "best" solution. Yes, my native JS implementation of a gallery app is much faster than the React version (reviewed by an experienced React-dev and judged "good") but if that project g…

" I'd expect these devs to implement a feature quickly "

Isn't that basic sin of software development - weighing speed of implementation (which is just a tiny part of the lifetime cost of software) over anything else.

I'm not arguing against 'good enough', I just don't think this is a particularly strong argument for that.

It's like surgeon not washing his hands and sterilizing his equipment because that way implementing the surgery takes less effort.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#209

Post by calsy »

Is it possible for someone to point me in the direction of a nice JS project template that does not use a framework?

I would still like all the core elements of a decent JS project such as package manager, bundler, templating BUT without the overkill of a new framework. A project template that allows you to simply write HTML, CSS and JS modules in an organised fashion.

A reference to a Github repo or online doc would be awesome. With so much JS news and information these days its really hard to find any info without the words react or angular or whatever. Appreciate any help from you knowledgable folks.

Post reply on HN