This is what research looks like. You keep trying new things, making small improvements if you can. But sometimes you just try something different and it's not

This is what research looks like. You keep trying new things, making small improvements if you can. But sometimes you just try something different and it's not better. The truth, with software, is you don't really know what the implications of a design change are until you use it. We know a lot about what's good and bad about React now because we used it for a ton of stuff. That's the equivalent of taking your test vehicle out on the roads and testing it. In order to do that testing, these things get posted on Hacker News. Making your library mostly error free, putting docs up on GitHub... That's just getting it ready to actually test the ideas in that library. The JavaScript community is one of the most research friendly communities out there. That's because we basically don't have a standard library, we have to send our entire application over the wire in less than a second, we can't really change the runtime, and people often want us to build new applications in a matter of days. I get it, there are other realms of software development where you just have standardized tools, where stability is supreme, where you want to write huge checks and get back predictable quantities of mostly error free software. I get that. But this comment shitting on JavaScript for changing too much, it's like making fun of a kid for saying weird stuff. If you want something comprehensible and predictable, go use something else! Let things be what they are. Appreciate that we have choices and different languages have different goals. Don't beat the same drum over and over of "JavaScript is too JavaScripty!"