3 ms·

This all sounds good in theory, but the fact is you'll have trouble landing a job offer, say if you want to be a frontend or full stack web dev and you don't ye

by godot 8y ago

This all sounds good in theory, but the fact is you'll have trouble landing a job offer, say if you want to be a frontend or full stack web dev and you don't yet know React. True, the FAANGs will take you in as long as you pass the general CS algorithm tests. Most startups don't hire that way -- they want to see that you have some working knowledge of React. And yes, like the author said, learning at the job is the best option -- you learn how to practically use the framework, and you're forced to learn quickly. That is, provided that you get a job offer at all first. Aside from all that, I would also argue against the premise of the article at all: > Keeping up to date with Angular, React, Vue, Riot, Ember, Knockout is fun. I don't know about most people? But if at least a minority percentage of developers are like me -- learning these frameworks is the least fun part of the job. Building products is fun. If I had a choice (like in my hobby projects), I would build all the frontend of my projects in jQuery and HTML. It's just that the world has moved on and uses React now.

chaostheory 8y ago
The author is a little disingenuous with the post's title. As stated further within the post, he didn't stop learning frameworks. He just stopped learning frameworks that he considers new and uses stuff like Spring. His rationale makes sense. > The Lindy effect: The future life expectancy of technology is proportional to its current age. Every extra period of survival implies a longer remaining life expectancy. I don't fully disagree with him that there's a strong chance of wasting time learning a bleeding edge framework that fades into the background after 2-4 years. Tapestry was a good example. However, where I disagree with the author is what he defines as a "new" framework. I don't feel that either React or Angular are new frameworks. Both are pretty established at this point. imo Rails and Django, as well as any framework based on express are probably pretty solid as well. The obvious danger of waiting too long to at least experiment with new technology is the risk of being left behind and being dumbfounded when new concepts become mainstream. This leads to not getting interviews as well. Why? It's more efficient for companies to vet people on standardized industry knowledge such as a framework. That said, Eduards Sizovs still has a point to keep in mind.

by godot 8y ago

chaostheory 8y ago

The author is a little disingenuous with the post's title. As stated further within the post, he didn't stop learning frameworks. He just stopped learning frameworks that he considers new and uses stuff like Spring. His rationale makes sense. > The Lindy effect: The future life expectancy of technology is proportional to its current age. Every extra period of survival implies a longer remaining life expectancy. I don't fully disagree with him that there's a strong chance of wasting time learning a bleeding edge framework that fades into the background after 2-4 years. Tapestry was a good example. However, where I disagree with the author is what he defines as a "new" framework. I don't feel that either React or Angular are new frameworks. Both are pretty established at this point. imo Rails and Django, as well as any framework based on express are probably pretty solid as well. The obvious danger of waiting too long to at least experiment with new technology is the risk of being left behind and being dumbfounded when new concepts become mainstream. This leads to not getting interviews as well. Why? It's more efficient for companies to vet people on standardized industry knowledge such as a framework. That said, Eduards Sizovs still has a point to keep in mind.