4 ms·

omg this guy is on spot. My day job is Magento (hell), but I am absolutely in love with boring ol' C#, along with the new ASP.NET Core framework & Kestrel web s

omg this guy is on spot. My day job is Magento (hell), but I am absolutely in love with boring ol' C#, along with the new ASP.NET Core framework & Kestrel web server. All of my side projects are built using C#, and I don't use jQuery or Angular or React or Reactive. I use plain old vanilla javascript, because I care about zero HTTP requests & zero bloat & zero BS.

UK-AL 10y ago
Applications that don't rely on large js frameworks, tend to feel snappier as well.
- cle 10y ago
  They also tend to turn into huge messy hairballs after years of developers and new business use cases. Not that these are use cases for personal projects, but standardized frameworks are valuable for large teams with lots of changing use cases and long-term maintenance requirements.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    I've seen plenty of Ember apps succumb to the same syndrome- the problem is the developers, who are either incompetent or contractors who care only about the deadline before them. I don't think a framework is a magic cure for bad developers, though maybe because you wrote less code to start it probably does take longer to get to spaghetti hell.
  - tboyd47 10y ago
    It's usually not so bad if you can just keep the amount of client-side code down.
  - ksk 10y ago
    I don't see any long term stability and support in any JS framework. They seem to pop in and out of existence at a fairly rapid pace. What examples do you have of long-term projects that use those frameworks?
    - 91bananas 10y ago
      http://backbonejs.org/ http://backbonejs.org/ is my favorite framework. It doesn't do much, I continue to be impressed with it daily. I'm on my second major project with it. It's getting old now in JS years (read, actual years). Doesn't have any steam behind it compared to ember, react, angular. But it continues to work daily
      - at-fates-hands 10y ago
        One of the first React workshops I was a part of was put on by Henrik Joreteg. In the first five minutes he said something along the lines of: "React has its place, and I mean Backbone still works and is a fucking amazing library." Then went on a mini rant about how people abandon libraries because they're new and shiny and its not because they're bad or deficient in any way - which is why he used his Backbone example. It's still awesome, it still works incredibly well and is still very much supported by a large, well informed community. Then of course, he went back to telling us how awesome ReactJS was and why we should want to try it and use it for our projects.
      - mohaine 10y ago
        I hate backbone. Lots of boilerplate and everyone I see a set("field",value) I die a little inside. Also, everything of any size I've seen written in backbone turned into an unmaintainable mess.
        91bananas 10y ago
        What boilerplate? React is all the rage now and it looks a hell of a lot like a backbone view. It has an initialize function, render, events, some constants, and the handlers for events. I don't know how much more minimal you can get than that. As for the unmaintainable part, I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you've worked with poor programmers?
        mohaine 10y ago
        Really it is the requirement to to redefine your model in backbone that is a deal breaker. Alot of code that just don't have to write in other frameworks, although i understand why it is there. Most of the unmaintainable comes from it being a lighter weight frame work so devs often fall back to jquery. This is OK if you can figure out exactly where they added that trigger. Way to often that is overly hard. It could be pages away. And yes, most of my coworkes are poor programmers. Saddly that is the world we live in and I like frameworks that make them a little easier to live with.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    The thing is you don't actually need that much javascript. 5-10 years ago mostly everything was server side, and js was mostly for cosmetic stuff.
    - paulryanrogers 10y ago
      This depends upon the business case. Some just do not permit reloading the whole page for every server interaction. Very interactive multiplayer games come to mind.
    - mehh 10y ago
      Sure, but now the use of rich javascript clients enables a bunch of use cases and workflows and interactions that was previously not possible. It has enriched the user experience, some times unnecessarily, but thats down to the implementers not the technology.
petepete 10y ago
I'm with you for the most part, but working out browser inconsistencies without jQuery's (or similar) help is painful. Admittedly, not as much of a problem recently.
callmeed 10y ago
Yo, I got some Magento questions. How do I email you?
- benmarks 10y ago
  Probably our forums[1] or Magento Stack Exchange[2] are better places to ask than this thread. [1] http://community.magento.com http://community.magento.com [2] http://magento.stackexchange.com/ http://magento.stackexchange.com/
oldmanhorton 10y ago
Can't agree more. ASP.NET Core with C# is a breath of fresh air after doing mostly complicated express.js-backed SPA development for a while.
jaegerpicker 10y ago
Wait C# (especially with core and Kestrel which are brand new) is a boring old stack to you and php/magento is a cool new stack?!? Php is as old and boring as it gets. I worked on php 18 years ago, C# is far younger than that and core and Kestrel is as new and shiny as almost any JS stack.
mrweasel 10y ago
Well, you are working with Magento, so pretty much any technology would be better. Magento is seen as the "safe" choice for many, when picking an ecommerce solution. I assume the reason is "everyone else is using it", and while that true, I don't believe that many on the technical side is actually enjoying it. Magento is non-boring in the same way a plane crash is.

UK-AL 10y ago

Applications that don't rely on large js frameworks, tend to feel snappier as well.

cle 10y ago
They also tend to turn into huge messy hairballs after years of developers and new business use cases. Not that these are use cases for personal projects, but standardized frameworks are valuable for large teams with lots of changing use cases and long-term maintenance requirements.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I've seen plenty of Ember apps succumb to the same syndrome- the problem is the developers, who are either incompetent or contractors who care only about the deadline before them. I don't think a framework is a magic cure for bad developers, though maybe because you wrote less code to start it probably does take longer to get to spaghetti hell.
- tboyd47 10y ago
  It's usually not so bad if you can just keep the amount of client-side code down.
- ksk 10y ago
  I don't see any long term stability and support in any JS framework. They seem to pop in and out of existence at a fairly rapid pace. What examples do you have of long-term projects that use those frameworks?
  - 91bananas 10y ago
    http://backbonejs.org/ http://backbonejs.org/ is my favorite framework. It doesn't do much, I continue to be impressed with it daily. I'm on my second major project with it. It's getting old now in JS years (read, actual years). Doesn't have any steam behind it compared to ember, react, angular. But it continues to work daily
    - at-fates-hands 10y ago
      One of the first React workshops I was a part of was put on by Henrik Joreteg. In the first five minutes he said something along the lines of: "React has its place, and I mean Backbone still works and is a fucking amazing library." Then went on a mini rant about how people abandon libraries because they're new and shiny and its not because they're bad or deficient in any way - which is why he used his Backbone example. It's still awesome, it still works incredibly well and is still very much supported by a large, well informed community. Then of course, he went back to telling us how awesome ReactJS was and why we should want to try it and use it for our projects.
    - mohaine 10y ago
      I hate backbone. Lots of boilerplate and everyone I see a set("field",value) I die a little inside. Also, everything of any size I've seen written in backbone turned into an unmaintainable mess.
      - 91bananas 10y ago
        What boilerplate? React is all the rage now and it looks a hell of a lot like a backbone view. It has an initialize function, render, events, some constants, and the handlers for events. I don't know how much more minimal you can get than that. As for the unmaintainable part, I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you've worked with poor programmers?
        mohaine 10y ago
        Really it is the requirement to to redefine your model in backbone that is a deal breaker. Alot of code that just don't have to write in other frameworks, although i understand why it is there. Most of the unmaintainable comes from it being a lighter weight frame work so devs often fall back to jquery. This is OK if you can figure out exactly where they added that trigger. Way to often that is overly hard. It could be pages away. And yes, most of my coworkes are poor programmers. Saddly that is the world we live in and I like frameworks that make them a little easier to live with.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  The thing is you don't actually need that much javascript. 5-10 years ago mostly everything was server side, and js was mostly for cosmetic stuff.
  - paulryanrogers 10y ago
    This depends upon the business case. Some just do not permit reloading the whole page for every server interaction. Very interactive multiplayer games come to mind.
  - mehh 10y ago
    Sure, but now the use of rich javascript clients enables a bunch of use cases and workflows and interactions that was previously not possible. It has enriched the user experience, some times unnecessarily, but thats down to the implementers not the technology.

petepete 10y ago

I'm with you for the most part, but working out browser inconsistencies without jQuery's (or similar) help is painful. Admittedly, not as much of a problem recently.

callmeed 10y ago

Yo, I got some Magento questions. How do I email you?

benmarks 10y ago
Probably our forums[1] or Magento Stack Exchange[2] are better places to ask than this thread. [1] http://community.magento.com http://community.magento.com [2] http://magento.stackexchange.com/ http://magento.stackexchange.com/

oldmanhorton 10y ago

Can't agree more. ASP.NET Core with C# is a breath of fresh air after doing mostly complicated express.js-backed SPA development for a while.

jaegerpicker 10y ago

Wait C# (especially with core and Kestrel which are brand new) is a boring old stack to you and php/magento is a cool new stack?!? Php is as old and boring as it gets. I worked on php 18 years ago, C# is far younger than that and core and Kestrel is as new and shiny as almost any JS stack.

mrweasel 10y ago

Well, you are working with Magento, so pretty much any technology would be better. Magento is seen as the "safe" choice for many, when picking an ecommerce solution. I assume the reason is "everyone else is using it", and while that true, I don't believe that many on the technical side is actually enjoying it. Magento is non-boring in the same way a plane crash is.