3 ms·

I find it funny that JavaScript had (proposed) standardized first-party support for XML literals in the language (E4X), but nobody was using it because "XML suc

I find it funny that JavaScript had (proposed) standardized first-party support for XML literals in the language (E4X), but nobody was using it because "XML sucks". Then shortly after it was scraped by Mozilla, React/JSX (requiring babel/node) became mainstream and praised for basically what E4X had done all the time. I guess to become mainstream these days, a lib needs to spin a drama around it such as "React vs Angular".

okal 8y ago
This seems to happen quite a lot. I've heard similar criticism levelled at GraphQL (as a modern day SOAP). I wonder what the psychology behind this is. Perhaps they were ahead of their time, and top-down, not "community-driven"?
- hopsoft 8y ago
  Interesting point about grassroots vs top down. I think that definitely plays into the equation. Another big part of it is that developers seem to a unique class of workers that don’t seem learn much from those who preceded them. We love to reinvent things, in part due to the snowflake effect & NIH syndrome. The other reason I think the wheel keeps being reinvented in tech is due to the developer workforce essentially doubling every 5 years... also, the sad reality that ageism coupled with very few long term viable career tracks available for software writers pushes a lot of experience and wisdom out of the industry.
jonchang 8y ago
I would say that the problem with E4X was not just that "XML sucks", but that E4X was attempting to solve two related but orthogonal problems and the tradeoff of attempting to do both caused some serious ergonomic warts. Namely, blending "XML as a primitive" while also inventing a new query language for XML. I would also say that XHP was a more likely intermediate step between React/JSX and E4X, given that Facebook invented/popularized both.

3 ms·

I find it funny that JavaScript had (proposed) standardized first-party support for XML literals in the language (E4X), but nobody was using it because "XML suc

by tannhaeuser 8y ago

okal 8y ago
This seems to happen quite a lot. I've heard similar criticism levelled at GraphQL (as a modern day SOAP). I wonder what the psychology behind this is. Perhaps they were ahead of their time, and top-down, not "community-driven"?
- hopsoft 8y ago
  Interesting point about grassroots vs top down. I think that definitely plays into the equation. Another big part of it is that developers seem to a unique class of workers that don’t seem learn much from those who preceded them. We love to reinvent things, in part due to the snowflake effect & NIH syndrome. The other reason I think the wheel keeps being reinvented in tech is due to the developer workforce essentially doubling every 5 years... also, the sad reality that ageism coupled with very few long term viable career tracks available for software writers pushes a lot of experience and wisdom out of the industry.
jonchang 8y ago
I would say that the problem with E4X was not just that "XML sucks", but that E4X was attempting to solve two related but orthogonal problems and the tradeoff of attempting to do both caused some serious ergonomic warts. Namely, blending "XML as a primitive" while also inventing a new query language for XML. I would also say that XHP was a more likely intermediate step between React/JSX and E4X, given that Facebook invented/popularized both.