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

I’m Joining LinkedIn

tomdale.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#81

Post by mattnewton »

tyingq wrote: post #13

Lots of flagged comments, I suppose because of short quips related to the sleazy things LinkedIn has done in the past. I'm sure he's not unaware of those things. I wonder if he's thinking he may be able to influence them? Discourage dark patterns? Discourage the current mobile experience that's broken unless you download the app and/or log in?

My somewhat cynical guess is they threw an insane offer his way. A man has to eat, and Linkedin has been heavily recruiting for its Ember.js bet. Tom Dale is a big name in Ember. And he's also going to be able to get all that while contributing to the community he loves. No company is perfect and it's easy to see how you can explain those things away.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#82

Post by kethinov »

lcw wrote: post #72
kethinov wrote: post #51

> Perhaps you can write a tiny web app that loads instantly and still retains a full set of features, but most of the world cannot. I've long been skeptical of this line of thinking emanating from major thick client JS framework authors. I think they underestimate what people are capable of. > Over time, Ember will become like gcc -O3 for web apps, intelligently optimizing them and delivering them as fast as possible…

As software developers I think its easy for us to jump on this bandwagon that if you hand code all the things then you can make a super fast site and the internet would be such a wonderful place; and then thinking its all those heathen script kiddies using these junk JS frameworks slowing our browsers down. I know I'm guilty of this line of thinking so I'm not judging, but I also think many companies big and small ar…

The bandwagoning is disproportionately on the side of those leaning towards big frameworks. Look, I've been on the inside of large companies making framework choices and rarely is the decision rational. Often it's based on what's popular and based on the assumption that popular things are popular for good reasons. Biased metrics get thrown around to justify preconceived notions, and off to the races we go. Years later, everyone sees the old stack as "old and outdated" and a strong desire to throw it all away and rewrite it with the new hotness takes hold. Then the entire irrational process repeats itself.

I'm not saying the big trendy thick client JS frameworks are the wrong tool for every job. But in my experience they do seem to be the wrong tool for an alarming number of jobs they are presently being used for. And I'm not just spitting rhetoric here. I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is. If you want to know specifically when I think a big thick client JS framework might be the right tool for the job and when it probably isn't, this article does a good job of outlining that: https://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash-myt...

As for the tradeoff associated with developer productivity vs. performance, there is some validity to that. However, I think people overestimate the developer productivity gains the frameworks offer. You only get productivity gains if your whole team is already fully trained on the framework. And in addition to the performance tradeoffs, you also risk your codebase having a shorter lifespan because the framework may make breaking changes to its API some day (e.g. Angular 1 -> Angular 2), whereas a vanilla JS implementation that relies on smaller, single purpose JS libraries will age considerably better.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#83

Post by zem »

lomnakkus wrote: post #55
WillEngler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought "artisanal, shade-grown code" was such a delightful phrase. I took it to mean not bad, but rather too costly for practical/mass use. Like some people can afford to buy $6 lattes, and those are likely very tasty lattes, but Folgers is going to move more beans.

It's an amazing phrase. AFAICT it doesn't actually mean anything. I certainly understand why such a high-profile developer would choose such a "bland, yet poetic" phrasing; my issue is just with trying to interpret it as somehow insightful.

it pretty clearly meant "code that has been lovingly handcrafted to the specifications of the problem", as opposed to "churned out using a mass-production framework". the analogy works for me.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#84

Post by newsat13 »

tyingq wrote: post #54
blub wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn's behavior is driven by profit. They want advertising money and are willing to sacrifice their users for that, just like Google, Facebook and more recently Microsoft, which happens to own LinkedIn. This person probably just wants to work on interesting things (for them) and get paid well, just like the thousands of employees at the other companies I mentioned. Fighting for ethical software doesn't pay. Nor d…

I think there is a line where it makes sense to speak up. Short term revenue isn't always worth the long term reputation hit.

> Short term revenue isn't always worth the long term reputation hit.

What? 200k/year is a lot of money and a norm in these companies. With 10 years of such money, I can retire for life.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#85

Post by lcw »

kethinov wrote: post #82
lcw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As software developers I think its easy for us to jump on this bandwagon that if you hand code all the things then you can make a super fast site and the internet would be such a wonderful place; and then thinking its all those heathen script kiddies using these junk JS frameworks slowing our browsers down. I know I'm guilty of this line of thinking so I'm not judging, but I also think many companies big and small ar…

The bandwagoning is disproportionately on the side of those leaning towards big frameworks. Look, I've been on the inside of large companies making framework choices and rarely is the decision rational. Often it's based on what's popular and based on the assumption that popular things are popular for good reasons. Biased metrics get thrown around to justify preconceived notions, and off to the races we go. Years late…

I think your points have some weight to them. Specifically I 100% agree that JS frameworks are at times misused, and in lots of situations are completely unnecessary. However, my point is the valid use cases for these JS frameworks warrant the open source investment that many community members are pouring into them.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#86

Post by kethinov »

lcw wrote: post #85
kethinov wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bandwagoning is disproportionately on the side of those leaning towards big frameworks. Look, I've been on the inside of large companies making framework choices and rarely is the decision rational. Often it's based on what's popular and based on the assumption that popular things are popular for good reasons. Biased metrics get thrown around to justify preconceived notions, and off to the races we go. Years late…

I think your points have some weight to them. Specifically I 100% agree that JS frameworks are at times misused, and in lots of situations are completely unnecessary. However, my point is the valid use cases for these JS frameworks warrant the open source investment that many community members are pouring into them.

That I completely agree with. And to be clear, while I disagree with some of what Tom Dale says sometimes, he's a very talented guy. LinkedIn is lucky to get him and I think it's entirely a good thing to see another prominent open source project get some corporate support.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#87

Post by charlieflowers »

fiatjaf wrote: post #8

So Tom Dale is one of the creators of Ember. Now he is joining LinkedIn to work with Ember. I think this is a little sad. I can't stop imagining that he thinks that something like React is better than Ember in all situations, but since he has such high Ember credentials and somehow LinkedIn decided to go with Ember then he feels he must accept that job.

I think what the parent is saying is that the parent likes to play this imaginary story in his head, and in this story, Tom Dale actually thinks React is better but can't work on it because he is known as a core contributor to Ember.

Parent is saying React is so clearly better that even Tom Dale knows it.

(I'm merely translating ... not stating any opinion of my own here).

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#88

Post by timonovici »

nissimk wrote: post #43

Does this mean I can expect improvements in the mobile web app? It has so many issues that I won't click the links on my phone. No, I don't want the android app. Stop asking me. Stop directing me to my home page when I clicked a link to go deep into the site. And please stop showing that spinner for unlimited time. Also, these may be back end issues but both the desktop and mobile web sites fail to update the notific…

Oh, you're preaching to the choir. They're the worst. By far, the worst mobile experience, and by far the most aggressive push for their mobile app. I choose not to open their mail on my mobile phone. And obviously I don't want their mobile app.

They must think of themselves as Facebook Messenger, which most people check with obsession, or at least aspire to become that.

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#89

Post by cozuya »

Bahamut wrote: post #73

This makes a lot of sense - LinkedIn has basically went almost all in (if not all in) on Ember. Being probably the biggest tech company relying so heavily on Ember, it's unsurprising that they want a core maintainer of it on board.

Just curious but what happened to Dust? Is it still a thing with them?

Re: I’m Joining LinkedIn

#90

Post by dkarapetyan »

daurnimator wrote: post #15
dkarapetyan wrote: post #12

> LinkedIn has bet big on Ember. I like how as technologists we talk about "betting" on things. As if technology choices are like gambles.

Aren't they? If there are two competing technologies, generally one will dominate, or more likely: both will be replaced by something new. You have to gamble that the technology you pick will stay relevant for long enough to be worth it.

My point is that's a broken attitude. I think Alan Kay likes to say software is a pop science and in pop science you bet on stuff because there are no other indicators of importance other than popularity.
Post reply on HN