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

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#61

Post by zxcvcxz » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:33 AM UTC

vhiremath4 wrote: post #41

"Another example is the Fetch API"... That API has very limited cross-browser support. One of the largest reasons web frameworks exist is to bridge the gaps between browser incompatibilities/offering legacy support. I don't know if this person has even really scaled and deployed a web application that must work across several browsers - especially older browser versions. I always wonder that whenever I see people bas…

Yeah I find it hard to believe that the people who go on about how convoluted web development is actually get paid to do web development.

1) Where are all the people hiring web devs who don't know a single library or framework?

2) Why do huge tech companies like facebook and google develop web frameworks if they're unnecessary?

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#62

Post by geoffpado » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:33 AM UTC

MrGando wrote: post #13

natrius wrote: post #5

I don't use React for speed. I use it because manipulating the DOM to make it reflect the application state is hard . It's something a program should do for me. React is that program.

A program?

I, too, did a double-take at the use of the word, but I looked it up, and it seems to be a valid usage. Various dictionaries define program merely as a "set of instructions," so, yeah, a library or framework counts as a program just as much as a separate process.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#63

Post by gjolund » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:33 AM UTC

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 feel like most of the FUD around JS frameworks comes from simple people building simple apps and wondering why everything needs to be so complicated. Frameworks enforce structure, which becomes more and more important as your app grows in complexity.

Frankly it would be great for me if this train of though picked up steam, plenty of contract work from companies who can't maintain their "homegrown" frameworks anymore.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#64

Post by coldtea » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:37 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.

Maybe, but in terms of understanding the code and having total control over it, it means a lot.

(And I don't buy the large teams can't adopt a self-grown code in the first place. If they're any good, they can. If they're not, then even their React and Angular skills will be bad).

Besides you know all your business logic code? That will be custom too, anyway,and they'll have to adopt it...

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#65

Post by lazaroclapp » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:37 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…

Also, your TCB now includes Angular, a bunch of fairly unstable libraries and the servers that provide all the NPM package managing infrastructure.

I mean, your TCB already included the OS, the OS update manager and the browser, but still...

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#66

Post by takno » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:38 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.

My total image payload is 30k. Obviously getting there is more challenging for other sites, but at the end of the day if your page is >1mb I'm probably not going to wait for it to load

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#67

Post by mwfunk » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:38 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…

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.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#68

Post by coldtea » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:40 AM UTC

educar wrote: post #50

The main point of frameworks/libraries is to set coding guidelines for the team. It's fine to go off and invent your own framework but this causes maintenance issues for the people coming in next. Most likely, there are no docs or examples for the code you just wrote (especially the framework bits). When a framework which has a community is chosen, these boring things like docs/examples/references/blog posts get fixe…

>When a framework which has a community is chosen, these boring things like docs/examples/references/blog posts get fixed over time.

Not in my experience. I've seen frameworks come and go like that over the span of 15 years and teams rewriting for the new "hotness".

So, one year they do Angular, then Angular 2 comes out, invalidating a lot of their code/experience, then they get to React, then they're told that they should structure it like Flux, then Redux comes along, and who knows what in 2 years.

Just imaging that merely 5 years ago Backbone was the preferred edge JS framework. In fact wasn't even that at that point -- it was only just released 5 years ago...

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#69

Post by tomc1985 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:41 AM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #36

tomc1985 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not see that headline about how the average page now is the size of a Doom install?

Mainly because an average page has much higher resolution graphics than Doom.

Six years ago I was regularly mining merchant pages containing 1mb+ of HTML. Nowadays that seems to be par for course.

Re: You probably don't need a JavaScript framework

#70

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:42 AM UTC

Svenskunganka wrote: post #20

Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unfortunately I have to disagree. The JavaScript Engine still have to parse and interpret the code. This can take a bit of time, especially on mobile devices.

[deleted]