2 ms·
Probably PHP and plain JS, which is why I think that argument doesn't make sense. New web stuff is currently so much better than the old alternative that dealin
by wyager 10y ago
Probably PHP and plain JS, which is why I think that argument doesn't make sense. New web stuff is currently so much better than the old alternative that dealing with tumultuous stability is often worth it.
- tomca32 10y agoI think there's a middle road. What you're mentioning is pretty extreme. Rails/Django/Spring and Angular/Ember are all considered boring and very stable while not nearly as outdated as your example.
- HereBeBeasties 10y agoIs it? I used to happily make very complex sites using Apache Wicket on top of Java. It lets you make composable, extensible components (including inherited markup). It is type safe (the cools kids are finally rediscovering how important this is for maintainability with Flow & TypeScript). It supports replacing components using AJAX. Sure, it's not great for client-side SVG rendering or the various other cool things you can do with React and co, but hand on heart, I can't honestly say I find doing all this stuff in JavaScript to be "so much better". Quite the opposite for the majority of intranet-type sites, in fact.
- wpietri 10y agoCare to show me your math on that over a 10-year time scale? I'd be curious even to see it for the technologies you mention. But as others point out, there are plenty of things newer than PHP that have become pretty boring.