7 ms·

To me, it is incredible that the frameworks matter THAT much in the JS world. Once you know about Javascript, the web, and browsers... any good dev should be ab

To me, it is incredible that the frameworks matter THAT much in the JS world. Once you know about Javascript, the web, and browsers... any good dev should be able to pickup such part of the tech stack (frameworks, libraries, ecc) quite quickly. In other environments (e.g. Python, Java) nobody expects you to know everything about the specific libraries used in a company; once you know the language and a bit about the technologies (e.g. work on Linux, on a webapp or a desktop app), you're good, you'll pickup the details while working. Forcing a technology change because it's not the "latest and greatest big, shiny thing"... I find this is a slightly disturbing trend in frontend development.

kutkloon7 9y ago
This also has to do with browser compatibility. Vanilla Javascript sucks so hard because it's so difficult to write non-trivial stuff that just works. This is the whole raison d'être for JQuery. This is mainly because the different browsers don't coordinate and there is no official standard. It should have been obvious from the start that this is a recipe for disaster.
shams93 9y ago
It's not an issue with JavaScript it's that the Dom has always been horrible. It's actually slowly improved but not enough to do without the need for frameworks for complex front end applications.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I think that's the real problem. Most JS frameworks wouldn't be needed if the DOM was designed for what it's used today.
- fenwick67 9y ago
  Yes yes yes. Simply creating nested elements and getting references to each of them is such a huge pain, and it's a huge part of why frameworks are needed. You would think creating, say, a form with a button and a textarea, and getting references to those things would be simple, but it's crazy painful in vanilla JS.
andrewstuart 9y ago
It's a myth that developers follow trends because they're cool. The reason one picks up a new JavaScript technology is because it is a better and smarter way of working. Wave after wave of innovation is bringing better and smarter ways of doing things. There seems to be some sort of vague idea that JavaScript programmers are following new libraries and frameworks like there is a Solid Gold Hit Parade of JavaScript and they all jump onto the number #1, and next month there is a new #1 so everybody changes to that simply because it is the new #1. That would be stupid. I use ReactJS because it is a great way to program and gives and application an excellent and functional structure. I use ES2015 and ES7 because they make JavaScript very much more powerful than ES5. If something radically better comes along then damn right I'll switch to it if I can, because "better" means smarter, easier, faster, more powerful - some combination of those to a greater or lesser extent. The JavaScript community desperately needs a fresh wave of innovation - but this wave must be about simplification - ideally the almost complete removal of all the pain associated with configuration of JavaScript build tools, which right now is excruciatingly and unnecessarily complex and painful - create-react-app has started this process and sets the standard for other tools moving ahead - the right amount of configuration is zero. It is necessary to use a bunch of painful JavaScript configuration and build tools in order to get your stuff to run. Waves of better, simpler and smarter build tools overrun the previous generation because they have found simpler and easier and more powerful ways to work. Lets just drop the idea that JavaScript programmers are a bunch of airheads who follow the latest trends whilst they pull on their flared pants and fancy hairstyles.
- alanfranzoni 9y ago
  I hope that, at least, the new technology is better than the old one. But I have some objections: - why can't old libraries/frameworks/things evolve, instead of forcing a breaking change? In many other languages evolution seems to preferred to revolution; in JS, evolution seems to be the norm. - Is that "better and smarter way of working" THAT MUCH BETTER AND SMARTER? When working JS, it seems that a complete overhaul of an application (or of an ecosystem) is required every very few years. Ultimately, software development should lead to business value; does the improvement in generated business value justify the costs associated with such a tech twirl?
shusson 9y ago
> To me, it is incredible that the frameworks matter THAT much in the JS world It's not the JS world, it's the browsers world. I think a better comparison is iOS vs Android vs web development.
lxcid 9y ago
JavaScript is unlike other languages, it take the big 4 (Chrome, Safari, Firefox and IE/Edge) to come to an agreement to get something done. And standardization takes many years to reach mass adoptions. No language come close to such a mess. Even Python 2 to 3 migration wasn't as complex. Yet, they move fast, faster than those languages that are controlled by one authority. Frameworks are important because at the lower level, things are not as simple to get done as those language with only one authority. They API agreed by the authorities will definitely be thin. So the community step up with frameworks.
mercurysmessage 9y ago
I never understood the craze over React. I tried it, and I didn't like it. It may work for Facebook's use case, but to me it looks like a lot of people are unnecessarily rebuilding their front ends with React just because it's hot.
- sotojuan 9y ago
  A lot of our industry hires based on buzzwords. For web developers, it pays to have React experience in their resume. Doesn't matter if the app they built didn't need it at all.
  - weka 9y ago
    Depends where, though. I'm based in the South, Alabama, and most of the jobs here want C# or Angular (1x... specifically). I rarely, rarely see React mentioned. Of those who want JavaScript experience, it's usually followed with "Do you have any .NET experience?"
    - sotojuan 9y ago
      Yeah same back home in Texas (Houston, not Austin). NYC and SF are different stories :-)
- amackera 9y ago
  Facebook's use case happens to mirror a great deal of web products currently.
  - mercurysmessage 9y ago
    Certainly not in scale.
    - amackera 9y ago
      That's true, but React doesn't directly deal with those problems (and certainly not the parts specific to Facebook).
0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
Is webassembly ever going to help in this regard? Seems like it could.

kutkloon7 9y ago

This also has to do with browser compatibility. Vanilla Javascript sucks so hard because it's so difficult to write non-trivial stuff that just works. This is the whole raison d'être for JQuery. This is mainly because the different browsers don't coordinate and there is no official standard. It should have been obvious from the start that this is a recipe for disaster.

shams93 9y ago

It's not an issue with JavaScript it's that the Dom has always been horrible. It's actually slowly improved but not enough to do without the need for frameworks for complex front end applications.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I think that's the real problem. Most JS frameworks wouldn't be needed if the DOM was designed for what it's used today.
fenwick67 9y ago
Yes yes yes. Simply creating nested elements and getting references to each of them is such a huge pain, and it's a huge part of why frameworks are needed. You would think creating, say, a form with a button and a textarea, and getting references to those things would be simple, but it's crazy painful in vanilla JS.

andrewstuart 9y ago

It's a myth that developers follow trends because they're cool. The reason one picks up a new JavaScript technology is because it is a better and smarter way of working. Wave after wave of innovation is bringing better and smarter ways of doing things. There seems to be some sort of vague idea that JavaScript programmers are following new libraries and frameworks like there is a Solid Gold Hit Parade of JavaScript and they all jump onto the number #1, and next month there is a new #1 so everybody changes to that simply because it is the new #1. That would be stupid. I use ReactJS because it is a great way to program and gives and application an excellent and functional structure. I use ES2015 and ES7 because they make JavaScript very much more powerful than ES5. If something radically better comes along then damn right I'll switch to it if I can, because "better" means smarter, easier, faster, more powerful - some combination of those to a greater or lesser extent. The JavaScript community desperately needs a fresh wave of innovation - but this wave must be about simplification - ideally the almost complete removal of all the pain associated with configuration of JavaScript build tools, which right now is excruciatingly and unnecessarily complex and painful - create-react-app has started this process and sets the standard for other tools moving ahead - the right amount of configuration is zero. It is necessary to use a bunch of painful JavaScript configuration and build tools in order to get your stuff to run. Waves of better, simpler and smarter build tools overrun the previous generation because they have found simpler and easier and more powerful ways to work. Lets just drop the idea that JavaScript programmers are a bunch of airheads who follow the latest trends whilst they pull on their flared pants and fancy hairstyles.

alanfranzoni 9y ago
I hope that, at least, the new technology is better than the old one. But I have some objections: - why can't old libraries/frameworks/things evolve, instead of forcing a breaking change? In many other languages evolution seems to preferred to revolution; in JS, evolution seems to be the norm. - Is that "better and smarter way of working" THAT MUCH BETTER AND SMARTER? When working JS, it seems that a complete overhaul of an application (or of an ecosystem) is required every very few years. Ultimately, software development should lead to business value; does the improvement in generated business value justify the costs associated with such a tech twirl?

shusson 9y ago

> To me, it is incredible that the frameworks matter THAT much in the JS world It's not the JS world, it's the browsers world. I think a better comparison is iOS vs Android vs web development.

lxcid 9y ago

JavaScript is unlike other languages, it take the big 4 (Chrome, Safari, Firefox and IE/Edge) to come to an agreement to get something done. And standardization takes many years to reach mass adoptions. No language come close to such a mess. Even Python 2 to 3 migration wasn't as complex. Yet, they move fast, faster than those languages that are controlled by one authority. Frameworks are important because at the lower level, things are not as simple to get done as those language with only one authority. They API agreed by the authorities will definitely be thin. So the community step up with frameworks.

mercurysmessage 9y ago

I never understood the craze over React. I tried it, and I didn't like it. It may work for Facebook's use case, but to me it looks like a lot of people are unnecessarily rebuilding their front ends with React just because it's hot.

sotojuan 9y ago
A lot of our industry hires based on buzzwords. For web developers, it pays to have React experience in their resume. Doesn't matter if the app they built didn't need it at all.
- weka 9y ago
  Depends where, though. I'm based in the South, Alabama, and most of the jobs here want C# or Angular (1x... specifically). I rarely, rarely see React mentioned. Of those who want JavaScript experience, it's usually followed with "Do you have any .NET experience?"
  - sotojuan 9y ago
    Yeah same back home in Texas (Houston, not Austin). NYC and SF are different stories :-)
amackera 9y ago
Facebook's use case happens to mirror a great deal of web products currently.
- mercurysmessage 9y ago
  Certainly not in scale.
  - amackera 9y ago
    That's true, but React doesn't directly deal with those problems (and certainly not the parts specific to Facebook).

0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago

Is webassembly ever going to help in this regard? Seems like it could.