4 ms·

> But something that I almost never hear: critics offering a candid explanation for why their platform / language / framework - which maybe wasn't perfect but C

by rplst8 10y ago

> But something that I almost never hear: critics offering a candid explanation for why their platform / language / framework - which maybe wasn't perfect but CERTAINLY compared to JavaScript was awesome - did not become the de facto tool across as diverse a spectrum for delivering features / products / tools to users. I believe that part of the reason is the ease of access to JS development. It allowed an inordinate amount of poorly trained devs to enter into the job market. Because you can quickly whip up fancy UIs and show them to unsuspecting non-techie types, you can quickly earn a reputation as a "computer whiz". I think there were many de facto ways of doing things before this, none of which were perfect, but some of which followed better design principles. If you look at software industries where security and stability is of utmost importance, you will not find these newer frameworks in use - nor the languages they use. I'm thinking life critical systems here.

cdata 10y ago
There are a few condescending attitudes at play in your comment. Consider this: just because a language is easy to pick up doesn't mean it attracts "poorly trained devs". It just means it attracts more devs, because it is easier to get into it. Putting aside any value judgement of mass appeal, my experience suggests that the most important differences between a poorly-/un- trained dev and any other kind are time and practice. So, being easy to use is a much more powerful feature for a language / framework / platform than most. Also, we should all be aspiring to use tools that enable us to quickly spin up a prototype UI that looks convincingly useful. I'm not sure why that's a knock against JS. Also consider this: the languages / frameworks / platforms before the web, and before JS, were harder to use and relatively very discouraging to new users (this also sometimes goes for the communities associated with those languages / frameworks / platforms). We all started from a place of ignorance as software developers, and many of us never would have left that place if it weren't for someone looking at us and seeing a computer whiz in the making.
- rplst8 10y ago
  > So, being easy to use is a much more powerful feature for a language / framework / platform than most. I never said that JS was easy to use. I said it was easy to access. With JS, you don't really need an IDE, compiler, runtime etc. You need a browser, and a text editor and you can get started. It's unlike a lot of other languages in that way. In some ways, I'd argue that languages like JavaScript are harder to use, or at least harder to use well. There is a reason that languages like Ada exist with very strong type systems. Granted, Ada is not a web development language, but I think my point still holds true since languages like TypeScript are making inroads in this arena. I think spinning up "convincingly useful" UIs is part of the problem. First, in a lot of ways it's the wrong place to start for software design. It raises expectations and can create a contract in the minds of the client, customer, or user that this is what the software will do, and it will do it perfectly. I'm not claiming that I (or any other programmer) started out knowing everything. But taking the time to learn, apprentice, and hone the craft of software development (the full cycle, not just writing code) is part of the game. I think the attraction of a lot of the current web frameworks is the "whiz-bang" results you get, and it's my humble opinion that you should no more build software that way than you should a smartphone, bridge, or building. I think people need to have more respect for the software engineering field, follow best practices, and not throw out everything we've learned as each new Next Big Thing (TM) comes out.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > think people need to have more respect for the software engineering field, follow best practices, and not throw out everything we've learned as each new Next Big Thing (TM) comes out. I agree with this sentiment, with a few (rather large) caveats: ∙ Best practices yesterday may be legacy practices tomorrow. ∙ The Next Big Thing™ is usually hidden lower in the stack (in the above example it was cheaper commodity hardware and free-as-in-beer operating systems), and while it may not force throwing away everything, it can still prompt throwing away a heck of a lot. So, yeah, there is a lot of churn in the JS ecosystem right now. It's inevitable that there will be some sort of shakeout and some projects will emerge as de-facto standards around things like declaring dependencies, build tools, etc. The same thing happens in every successful software ecosystem exploiting a new niche.

by rplst8 10y ago

cdata 10y ago

There are a few condescending attitudes at play in your comment. Consider this: just because a language is easy to pick up doesn't mean it attracts "poorly trained devs". It just means it attracts more devs, because it is easier to get into it. Putting aside any value judgement of mass appeal, my experience suggests that the most important differences between a poorly-/un- trained dev and any other kind are time and practice. So, being easy to use is a much more powerful feature for a language / framework / platform than most. Also, we should all be aspiring to use tools that enable us to quickly spin up a prototype UI that looks convincingly useful. I'm not sure why that's a knock against JS. Also consider this: the languages / frameworks / platforms before the web, and before JS, were harder to use and relatively very discouraging to new users (this also sometimes goes for the communities associated with those languages / frameworks / platforms). We all started from a place of ignorance as software developers, and many of us never would have left that place if it weren't for someone looking at us and seeing a computer whiz in the making.

rplst8 10y ago
> So, being easy to use is a much more powerful feature for a language / framework / platform than most. I never said that JS was easy to use. I said it was easy to access. With JS, you don't really need an IDE, compiler, runtime etc. You need a browser, and a text editor and you can get started. It's unlike a lot of other languages in that way. In some ways, I'd argue that languages like JavaScript are harder to use, or at least harder to use well. There is a reason that languages like Ada exist with very strong type systems. Granted, Ada is not a web development language, but I think my point still holds true since languages like TypeScript are making inroads in this arena. I think spinning up "convincingly useful" UIs is part of the problem. First, in a lot of ways it's the wrong place to start for software design. It raises expectations and can create a contract in the minds of the client, customer, or user that this is what the software will do, and it will do it perfectly. I'm not claiming that I (or any other programmer) started out knowing everything. But taking the time to learn, apprentice, and hone the craft of software development (the full cycle, not just writing code) is part of the game. I think the attraction of a lot of the current web frameworks is the "whiz-bang" results you get, and it's my humble opinion that you should no more build software that way than you should a smartphone, bridge, or building. I think people need to have more respect for the software engineering field, follow best practices, and not throw out everything we've learned as each new Next Big Thing (TM) comes out.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > think people need to have more respect for the software engineering field, follow best practices, and not throw out everything we've learned as each new Next Big Thing (TM) comes out. I agree with this sentiment, with a few (rather large) caveats: ∙ Best practices yesterday may be legacy practices tomorrow. ∙ The Next Big Thing™ is usually hidden lower in the stack (in the above example it was cheaper commodity hardware and free-as-in-beer operating systems), and while it may not force throwing away everything, it can still prompt throwing away a heck of a lot. So, yeah, there is a lot of churn in the JS ecosystem right now. It's inevitable that there will be some sort of shakeout and some projects will emerge as de-facto standards around things like declaring dependencies, build tools, etc. The same thing happens in every successful software ecosystem exploiting a new niche.