3 ms·

The good news is that Angular 1.x will work fine. It'll get the job done, there's a huge pool of talent to pull from, and it's proven to work at scale. However

by ericflo 11y ago

The good news is that Angular 1.x will work fine. It'll get the job done, there's a huge pool of talent to pull from, and it's proven to work at scale. However there are newer, better technologies now, and in 2 years time, there will be better ones still. It's a tradeoff like any other. And while certain fads do come and go, there are also larger shifts and it's pretty clear by now that React's declarative-reactive style is the direction the industry as a whole is going. The aggregate community is always searching for better solutions, it just so happens that this aggregate community is now huge and that means lots of people thinking about the same problems, meaning we make faster progress. Old things don't stop working, but new things can be made better! What's the harm? Why so angry?

jmduke 11y ago
I think there are frustrations borne from two main places: - Code is fashion; for some (especially on HN) there is inherent value in using technologies that are bleeding-edge and in vogue. Additionally, the necessity to use things that are bleeding-edge and/or in vogue is amplified when you're on HN or similar communities, much in the same way that the quality of your raw denim is amplified when you're on a fashion forum or with a bunch of stylish people. - Fashion fades; building something when it's in vogue in 2015 for the sole reason that its in vogue in 2015 feels a lot worse when its in 2016 and suddenly the underlying technologies are not so shiny. I think it can be easy to muddle 'progress' in the sense of "how do we move web technologies forward?" and 'progress' in the sense of "how do we deliver value to clients and customers?" As someone who is fairly shy of the current fashion (namely the React + Redux stack, which I've had the pleasure of working with the past couple weeks and whoa is it cool!) -- I'm not entirely convinced that the value delivered by using these technologies always outweighs the risk that they'll be obviated in less than a years' time. And so, there is a risk inherent in rapid progress, if rapid progress necessitates (as it seems to) the abandonment of anything that isn't pushing forward. Choosing your technologies is a value proposition: every choice has positives and negatives. It can be frustrating to realize in retrospect that the positives weren't that positive and that there were negatives you didn't even imagine.
georgefrick 11y ago
"It's pretty clear... is the direction the industry as a whole is going". You or anyone else posting hasn't identified this "industry", it appears to be "quickly built apps that have no lifespan". I mean no offense; but we're back to saying it should be used because people are using it. I'm upset at exactly that; it's not like anyone replied with objective software development reasoning that justifies this constant shift of frameworks, or addresses the need for enterprise software to have a longer horizon for support and talent.

by ericflo 11y ago

jmduke 11y ago

I think there are frustrations borne from two main places: - Code is fashion; for some (especially on HN) there is inherent value in using technologies that are bleeding-edge and in vogue. Additionally, the necessity to use things that are bleeding-edge and/or in vogue is amplified when you're on HN or similar communities, much in the same way that the quality of your raw denim is amplified when you're on a fashion forum or with a bunch of stylish people. - Fashion fades; building something when it's in vogue in 2015 for the sole reason that its in vogue in 2015 feels a lot worse when its in 2016 and suddenly the underlying technologies are not so shiny. I think it can be easy to muddle 'progress' in the sense of "how do we move web technologies forward?" and 'progress' in the sense of "how do we deliver value to clients and customers?" As someone who is fairly shy of the current fashion (namely the React + Redux stack, which I've had the pleasure of working with the past couple weeks and whoa is it cool!) -- I'm not entirely convinced that the value delivered by using these technologies always outweighs the risk that they'll be obviated in less than a years' time. And so, there is a risk inherent in rapid progress, if rapid progress necessitates (as it seems to) the abandonment of anything that isn't pushing forward. Choosing your technologies is a value proposition: every choice has positives and negatives. It can be frustrating to realize in retrospect that the positives weren't that positive and that there were negatives you didn't even imagine.

georgefrick 11y ago

"It's pretty clear... is the direction the industry as a whole is going". You or anyone else posting hasn't identified this "industry", it appears to be "quickly built apps that have no lifespan". I mean no offense; but we're back to saying it should be used because people are using it. I'm upset at exactly that; it's not like anyone replied with objective software development reasoning that justifies this constant shift of frameworks, or addresses the need for enterprise software to have a longer horizon for support and talent.