4 ms·

Maybe I read this with the wrong glasses, but I find some of the answers a bit high-horse? "How many components do you have" etc.

by hising 9y ago

ascendantlogic 9y ago
Sounds like the original post he was replying to was a hatchet job to begin with. The author did an admirable job of not getting down in the mud, I'm sure it was difficult not to take the original post personally and respond in kind.
- hising 9y ago
  Why respond at all if so?
  - ascendantlogic 9y ago
    Because, as I'm reading the response, the original post had a number of inaccuracies and FUD that it's not a good idea to leave out there unanswered since people will then assume they are true.
    - danabramov 9y ago
      Yep, that was the main motivation. I should've made it clearer (I hope some edits to the post helped). It's far from the first post like this but I noticed some of the factual misconceptions seem to be picking up, so I wanted to set them straight on the record. But I didn't consider the tone enough, and I regret this. I hope it's a little better now. :-)
spicyj 9y ago
I'm on the React team and momentarily read this the same way you did. It probably could have been clearer, but I think I don't think number of components here is meant to be an accomplishment. Rather, it just means that we've done the work of testing compatibility already on a gigantic codebase so there's a good chance that most other apps will work out of the box.
- Bahamut 9y ago
  How does testing work within FB, and how much of the frontend is tested? I don't think I have seen much on how FB does testing out there, and I have a good friend who complained about lack of tests at FB (he got called about his code change breaking the spam filter at midnight, and was pissed because there were no tests so he wasn't able to guarantee something like that wouldn't happen). I only ask out of curiosity, it'd be good to know how FB approached testing as a data point on a major company's approach (vs. say Google)
  - danabramov 9y ago
    I can't say much about Google, but at FB we have a combination of unit tests and integration tests. We don't strive to have 100% coverage, but the amount of tests is always growing, and we are investing effort into efficient tooling for running thousands of front-end tests: http://facebook.github.io/jest/ http://facebook.github.io/jest/.
- hising 9y ago
  My point being, you are doing a great job, if a person is frustrated over some tech and writes a blog post or whatever about it, maybe you should just leave it with that? Coming out defending design decisions etc just leaves a foul taste. React is awesome, but maybe it is not for everyone?
  - acemarke 9y ago
    It's definitely not for everyone, but it would be nice for people to make that decision based on accurate information. There is unfortunately a lot of FUD that has been spread around React in general, the React ecosystem, and the upcoming React Fiber rewrite. It's a combination of longstanding complaints like "HTML in my JS? EWW!", concerns about build tools like Babel and Webpack, badly written articles and headlines like the recent TechCrunch post that claimed "React Fiber is a complete change that Facebook has never talked about", and of course lots of arguments in comment sections. If someone has taken time to evaluate React and determined that it's not for them, that's totally fine. But, when poor articles get upvoted and spread widely, it doesn't help anyone.
brogrammernot 9y ago
I agree. In general, I aim to never use emojis within a post like this because that leaves too much up in the air for interpretation. I did find it a bit high horse, and subtle jabs, albeit still jabs at the original article's author. Left a bad taste in my mouth when I finished reading it. I can understand the author's frustration when the user's criticism is unfounded in many areas but his points could've been made without the tongue in cheek comments. It's a double standard for sure, but it's the same concept as when you're responding to a potential troll on social media. You don't want to add fuel to the fire.
- danabramov 9y ago
  Thanks for sharing! I edited the post in response to the negative feedback here, so I'd appreciate if you could give it another look and let me know if there's something else jumping out.
  - brogrammernot 9y ago
    It looks quite good! In all fairness, I wanted to make sure your points were heard clearly and I felt the tongue in cheek comments distracted from the clear explanation of how the author was offbase and incorrect. Looking forward to the future releases of React!
ww520 9y ago
The responses felt very defensive.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  Is that surprising? I have nothing to do with react and even I felt like ordering a shield after reading that original post. It wasn't well thought-out criticism, it was full of attacks and poorly researched complaints. I'm sure Dan would have done nothing with it, had the HN community not upvoted the original post through the roof.
  - acemarke 9y ago
    Admittedly, Dan does make it a point to search out confusion and concerns about React and try to offer help and address problems. But yes, that kind of high-profile post was definitely worth a response (particularly given the odd arguments and confusion in the post itself, much less the comment threads).
- danabramov 9y ago
  Thanks for feedback! I certainly made a mess there. :-) I edited the post, is it better now?

Maybe I read this with the wrong glasses, but I find some of the answers a bit high-horse? "How many components do you have" etc.

by hising 9y ago

Maybe I read this with the wrong glasses, but I find some of the answers a bit high-horse? "How many components do you have" etc.

ascendantlogic 9y ago

Sounds like the original post he was replying to was a hatchet job to begin with. The author did an admirable job of not getting down in the mud, I'm sure it was difficult not to take the original post personally and respond in kind.

hising 9y ago
Why respond at all if so?
- ascendantlogic 9y ago
  Because, as I'm reading the response, the original post had a number of inaccuracies and FUD that it's not a good idea to leave out there unanswered since people will then assume they are true.
  - danabramov 9y ago
    Yep, that was the main motivation. I should've made it clearer (I hope some edits to the post helped). It's far from the first post like this but I noticed some of the factual misconceptions seem to be picking up, so I wanted to set them straight on the record. But I didn't consider the tone enough, and I regret this. I hope it's a little better now. :-)

spicyj 9y ago

I'm on the React team and momentarily read this the same way you did. It probably could have been clearer, but I think I don't think number of components here is meant to be an accomplishment. Rather, it just means that we've done the work of testing compatibility already on a gigantic codebase so there's a good chance that most other apps will work out of the box.

Bahamut 9y ago
How does testing work within FB, and how much of the frontend is tested? I don't think I have seen much on how FB does testing out there, and I have a good friend who complained about lack of tests at FB (he got called about his code change breaking the spam filter at midnight, and was pissed because there were no tests so he wasn't able to guarantee something like that wouldn't happen). I only ask out of curiosity, it'd be good to know how FB approached testing as a data point on a major company's approach (vs. say Google)
- danabramov 9y ago
  I can't say much about Google, but at FB we have a combination of unit tests and integration tests. We don't strive to have 100% coverage, but the amount of tests is always growing, and we are investing effort into efficient tooling for running thousands of front-end tests: http://facebook.github.io/jest/ http://facebook.github.io/jest/.
hising 9y ago
My point being, you are doing a great job, if a person is frustrated over some tech and writes a blog post or whatever about it, maybe you should just leave it with that? Coming out defending design decisions etc just leaves a foul taste. React is awesome, but maybe it is not for everyone?
- acemarke 9y ago
  It's definitely not for everyone, but it would be nice for people to make that decision based on accurate information. There is unfortunately a lot of FUD that has been spread around React in general, the React ecosystem, and the upcoming React Fiber rewrite. It's a combination of longstanding complaints like "HTML in my JS? EWW!", concerns about build tools like Babel and Webpack, badly written articles and headlines like the recent TechCrunch post that claimed "React Fiber is a complete change that Facebook has never talked about", and of course lots of arguments in comment sections. If someone has taken time to evaluate React and determined that it's not for them, that's totally fine. But, when poor articles get upvoted and spread widely, it doesn't help anyone.

brogrammernot 9y ago

I agree. In general, I aim to never use emojis within a post like this because that leaves too much up in the air for interpretation. I did find it a bit high horse, and subtle jabs, albeit still jabs at the original article's author. Left a bad taste in my mouth when I finished reading it. I can understand the author's frustration when the user's criticism is unfounded in many areas but his points could've been made without the tongue in cheek comments. It's a double standard for sure, but it's the same concept as when you're responding to a potential troll on social media. You don't want to add fuel to the fire.

danabramov 9y ago
Thanks for sharing! I edited the post in response to the negative feedback here, so I'd appreciate if you could give it another look and let me know if there's something else jumping out.
- brogrammernot 9y ago
  It looks quite good! In all fairness, I wanted to make sure your points were heard clearly and I felt the tongue in cheek comments distracted from the clear explanation of how the author was offbase and incorrect. Looking forward to the future releases of React!

ww520 9y ago

The responses felt very defensive.

scrollaway 9y ago
Is that surprising? I have nothing to do with react and even I felt like ordering a shield after reading that original post. It wasn't well thought-out criticism, it was full of attacks and poorly researched complaints. I'm sure Dan would have done nothing with it, had the HN community not upvoted the original post through the roof.
- acemarke 9y ago
  Admittedly, Dan does make it a point to search out confusion and concerns about React and try to offer help and address problems. But yes, that kind of high-profile post was definitely worth a response (particularly given the odd arguments and confusion in the post itself, much less the comment threads).
danabramov 9y ago
Thanks for feedback! I certainly made a mess there. :-) I edited the post, is it better now?