3 ms·
It's a tightrope. Their are plenty of arguments to be made for having a large build system that makes development easier/more conventional. Their are also argum
by ben_jones 10y ago
It's a tightrope. Their are plenty of arguments to be made for having a large build system that makes development easier/more conventional. Their are also arguments to be made for minimalism and sticking to the fundamentals of the web with plain html/css/js.
What we can all agree on is that its good to at least have the CHOICE of development environments, build systems, and ecosystems. And I personally always fall back on: "this complexity is why I get paid more then most people".
- modarts 10y ago>And I personally always fall back on: "this complexity is why I get paid more then most people". This is pretty cringeworthy. If your tools are introducing enough incidental complexity that it needs to be reflected in your compensation, i'd argue your tools are failing your company badly. You should be paid more to reflect a higher level of technical or domain expertise relative to other engineers, not to account for your ability to glue together a mish-mash of poorly documented and half-baked technologies.
- ben_jones 10y agoI don't write tools that are unnecessarily complex in order to make more money.. I get paid to use tools that are necessarily complex, and use them properly. How you interpreted my post to relate entirely to the former is beyond me.