6 ms·
That's Conway's law for you. All three frameworks were built by meglogcorp, and they all feel exactly the same. It is funny that after the Rails driven success
by jacobsenscott 10y ago
That's Conway's law for you. All three frameworks were built by meglogcorp, and they all feel exactly the same.
It is funny that after the Rails driven success web devs had moving away from J2EE they are falling right back into the same traps - ultra complex bloated frameworks built on a terrible language.
- arahaya 10y agoSymfony comes to mind. It's like a php clone of Spring.
- indexerror 10y ago> ultra complex bloated frameworks built on a terrible language Even if you consider JS a bad language, proper abstractions can change the face of it entirely. By your logic, assembly is also bad since it is absurd to write anything useful in it. IMO Elm is a step in the right direction.
- axihack 10y agoI've been doing a lot of FE for many years now and have worked with all major frameworks and I love JS and its flexibility. That being said I think we've been building one framework after another trying to abstract the things that make JS a language not suitable for state dependent apps. Elm feels like the right step compared to anything else out there.
- choward 10y agoJavascript is definitely a terrible language, but it is the only language for the web unless you consider languages that transpile to javascript. Are you suggesting not using a javascript framework, using a transpiled language instead of javascript, not writing any front end code at all, or doing something ridiculous like turbolinks?
- bezzi 10y agoWhat is wrong with turbo links???
- calsy 10y agoWhy would you consider JS to be a terrible language? It's not a requirement to use a framework to code in JS.
- jomamaxx 10y ago"Why would you consider JS to be a terrible language? " JS is kind of a 'bad language' because: 1) It's missing some pretty important things. Try to determine if a value is a number. Seriously. Look into that mess. Or anything else. Doing simple type-checking is crazy, and we basically are resigned to 'best practices' - which is crazy. 2) Prototype chaining is a neat idea and has some merits - but in reality it makes things super-duper complicated. Ask 10 JS devs how it works and get 21 answers. That is bad. 3) Almost nothing is built in. You need to use a lot of 3rd party libs to do common things. 4) There is no such thing as 'JS' - ever browser, every version - you get completely different implementations. Maybe we can't blame 'JS' - but pragmatically, this means JS is a problem. A minor issue is issues with packaging, encapsulation and scale, which is also a function of loose typing. When JS programs get complex, they get unruly, and you wish you might be able to do things in an OO language at that point. JS is really light, and that has advantages - and I think it's the best language for a lot of async things - and UI's are inherently async - so that's good. In 5-8 years JS might be 'stabilized' in terms of libs or de-facto standards and it will grow. To anyone who's programmed in other, more established languages, I think it's clear JS has some weirdness that doesn't need to be there. But I like it.