3 ms·

Javascript for a while was full of MVC/MVVM frameworks, and React came along and only gave you the V and some basic hooks, expecting you to supply the rest your

by niftich 10y ago

Javascript for a while was full of MVC/MVVM frameworks, and React came along and only gave you the V and some basic hooks, expecting you to supply the rest yourself. This worked well for some specialized use-cases, but you couldn't replace Angular/Backbone/Ember with it, which is what people also want. Speaking as someone who started off as being dismissive of 'enterprisey' programming but later went on to write a lot of Java, problem domains are actually fairly complex, and a framework is designed to restrict the things you have to think about so you can get work done. When you chain minimalistic libraries together, you have to do all the work yourself; and some newbies are put off by this. On the other hand, it makes most quickstarts really simple, so I think it hits both ways. I think having a choice of high-quality libraries is nice; some are backed by big corporations unlikely to disappear overnight; some are hobbyist projects crafted by a loving community. I believe React+Redux is a good thing, causing people to think about all the complexity that goes into MVU, MVC, MVVM and is generally hidden beneath a monolithic framework.

aligajani 10y ago
That's the problem. Most 'people', such as budding developers, do not want to wire-up the internal components. They don't want to think about the complexity.
- niftich 10y ago
  Independently discovering that you need 'foo' when you start off dismissive of 'foo' is a great way to learn. And in many ways, is natural. Applications evolve in complexity, just as our understanding of them does. Until you need a tool that your current toolchest doesn't offer, you're fine, and likely benefited from having simple, easy-to-understand tools. Switching to a different toolchest will not be trivial, but it alters which problems are easy, and which are hard. I understand what you're getting at, but there is real architectural choices right now that didn't exist in 2012. It's true that React enjoys good mindshare and attracts new talent based on name-recognition alone, but there already is a next wave of alternatives to React (like Vue, Mithril, Aurelia) that are borne out of lessons learned from React and Angular/Backbone/Ember. If someone discovers that React doesn't in fact meet their needs, there's others to turn to, organically.
  - aligajani 10y ago
    Valid point.

by niftich 10y ago

aligajani 10y ago

That's the problem. Most 'people', such as budding developers, do not want to wire-up the internal components. They don't want to think about the complexity.

niftich 10y ago
Independently discovering that you need 'foo' when you start off dismissive of 'foo' is a great way to learn. And in many ways, is natural. Applications evolve in complexity, just as our understanding of them does. Until you need a tool that your current toolchest doesn't offer, you're fine, and likely benefited from having simple, easy-to-understand tools. Switching to a different toolchest will not be trivial, but it alters which problems are easy, and which are hard. I understand what you're getting at, but there is real architectural choices right now that didn't exist in 2012. It's true that React enjoys good mindshare and attracts new talent based on name-recognition alone, but there already is a next wave of alternatives to React (like Vue, Mithril, Aurelia) that are borne out of lessons learned from React and Angular/Backbone/Ember. If someone discovers that React doesn't in fact meet their needs, there's others to turn to, organically.
- aligajani 10y ago
  Valid point.