4 ms·
I think that what you're reaching for is wrongly engineered. Some of the big frameworks go through huge effort for non (or small requirements). I continue to be
by TimMurnaghan 9y ago
I think that what you're reaching for is wrongly engineered. Some of the big frameworks go through huge effort for non (or small requirements). I continue to be amazed at the nonsense about hot-loading and time-travel debugging that people think are framework requirements - while requirements like good bundling or actual debugger support which doesn't blow up on trivial examples go unfixed for years. It's those framework non-requirements which fuel the idea that the frameworks create bloat.
It's all about minimizing the effect of the non-requirements, careful choice of a minimal set of sensible enough frameworks, and then rigorous agile prioritization at the application end.
- tboyd47 9y agoI've adapted to this team anti-pattern by becoming relentlessly skeptical and cynical in my work. I don't let anyone tell me something is "trivial" or "easy" in programming unless I've actually seen it (meaning, with my own eyes, not reading about it on a blog), and protest untested ideas from coworkers vigorously, even if that person is a developer on my team whom I respect. I kind of hate this solution because it makes me automatically resistant to anything new whatsoever, but I hate it less than some of the code I've been forced to write to fill in gaps left by some flavor-of-the-month tech.
- g-b-r 9y agoIt's a good attitude as long as it doesn't turn you into a old coot stuck to his vb6. It's good to always be skeptic, but don't let that stop you trying new things.