4 ms·
The benefit of what's happening in JS is that a lot of libraries are reasonably compartmentalized for a specific purpose. As an example: you _could_ have one S
by rickhanlonii 10y ago
The benefit of what's happening in JS is that a lot of libraries are reasonably compartmentalized for a specific purpose.
As an example: you _could_ have one SpockJS framework that gives you React + Redux + ReactRedux, but instead each of these libraries are separate so you can use them without each other. This allows you to, say, move from React to Angular without changing the state of your application.
With everything moving so quickly in JS, this separation turns out to be valuable enough to tolerate a lot of packages and dependencies. It also makes it easier for communities to exist for solutions to specific problems, which at least in theory results in better solutions.
It's not necessarily better, just a different approach.
- tigershark 10y agoFor testing it doesn't make any sense. I want a coherent and expressive framework that does everything. If I'm doing BDD I know that I will need everything from the start. And from the little that I have seen about jest..well it seems really a jest. I can't really think to do any serious BDD with that.
- rickhanlonii 10y agoEven for testing I think it make sense. If you want to switch from Mocha to Jest and still use Chai for your assertions, you can. Like I said, it's not better just different.
- imtringued 10y agoI guess you could call it "diversification" of dependencies. If one dependency stops being maintained or is not the best approach you can jump to another one.