4 ms·

How about "web developer who thinks heavy client-side frameworks are a bad idea"?

constantlm 8y ago
It's all about using the correct tool for the job.
scarface74 8y ago
You can think however you wish - and I agree with you - but if you want to be competitive in the modern job market as a web developer, you have to be fluent in client side frameworks.
- andybak 8y ago
  I agree that having that tool in your toolbelt is important - it's not want the parent post was saying. He was arguing that you're either a Wordpress "not really programmer" or you're a front-end "big-framework-first" developer. As someone who's neither I rather disagree.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    I don't know any front end frameworks either. I know Javascript, Bootstrap, and HandleBarsJs for template and I have done web pages knowing only those. But no one would ever hire me as a "front end developer" or a "full stack developer" without knowing one.
rejschaap 8y ago
That is basically what he lists under number 2, "classic web developer".
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  Not necessarily, since someone would need to build the server backend for anything more complex than a static website. As other people have noted, classifying "web developer" as "frontend web developer" is a bit restrictive.
Kaveren 8y ago
I'd go so far as to question the experience of someone who doesn't see value in React or frameworks similar to it for web applications. There's a large contingent that advocates for bare-bones JS development, but minimalism for the sake of it is not worthwhile. It's all patchwork on top of JavaScript, though. Another programming language like Elm, or something that compiles to WebAssembly, may be another option to consider.
- RHSeeger 8y ago
  > minimalism for the sake of it is not worthwhile It is entirely possible to dislike React for being React, rather than for the fact that it's not minimalism. I have to work with React, and it's a constant source of pain for me.
  - Kaveren 8y ago
    What do you dislike not just about React, but categorically about that style of frontend development in general? Framework specific distaste I understand, but general philosophy wise I don't.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  Minimalism for the sake of good battery life and low website latency is quite worthwhile, though.
nicoburns 8y ago
This depends: If you're advocating for traditional server-rendered websites (perhaps with very small bits of interactivity via JS), then you're #3: A backend developer. If you're suggesting building a complex client-side app, just without a framework, then I reckon that this is just a variant of #1. But you'd better be a very experienced developer, or your code is going to be a complete mess. This isn't really a viable path for a new developer just starting out.
ng12 8y ago
If your projects are simple enough that using a framework is a bad idea it's a waste of money to hire the #1 types.
- andybak 8y ago
  It's this binary distinction I'm objecting to. Is the choice really "Wordpress" or "React"? There's a huge number of projects that don't fit either of these templates very well. I'd still argue that people building web "sites" (which can still be way beyond the complexity sweet spot for Wordpress) rather than web "apps" should not be building SPAs.
tracker1 8y ago
Define "heavy." Right now I have react, material-ui and a handful of libraries in an application with an initial load (through main entry point) under 80k gzipped, and under 300k total load (1.6mb in memory, which includes app configuration data) when you navigate through to an area with graphs. This also includes SVG manipulation and image overlays. In terms of what is being done, I'm far more judicious with removing unnecessary libraries. I've followed up other developers removing any number of modules in favor of hand-crafting from baseline modules. Since it's JSS it includes semi-dynamic styling that is based on async loaded modules. ex: if you don't go onto a chart/graph page, you don't get those modules. It really depends on your tooling, knowledge and what your needs are. IMHO it's far better than typical jquery + bootstrap + bootstrap extensions that many of those who look down on client-side frameworks lean towards.

It's all about using the correct tool for the job.

You can think however you wish - and I agree with you - but if you want to be competitive in the modern job market as a web developer, you have to be fluent in client side frameworks.

andybak 8y ago
I agree that having that tool in your toolbelt is important - it's not want the parent post was saying. He was arguing that you're either a Wordpress "not really programmer" or you're a front-end "big-framework-first" developer. As someone who's neither I rather disagree.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I don't know any front end frameworks either. I know Javascript, Bootstrap, and HandleBarsJs for template and I have done web pages knowing only those. But no one would ever hire me as a "front end developer" or a "full stack developer" without knowing one.

rejschaap 8y ago

That is basically what he lists under number 2, "classic web developer".

Kurtz79 8y ago
Not necessarily, since someone would need to build the server backend for anything more complex than a static website. As other people have noted, classifying "web developer" as "frontend web developer" is a bit restrictive.

Kaveren 8y ago

I'd go so far as to question the experience of someone who doesn't see value in React or frameworks similar to it for web applications. There's a large contingent that advocates for bare-bones JS development, but minimalism for the sake of it is not worthwhile. It's all patchwork on top of JavaScript, though. Another programming language like Elm, or something that compiles to WebAssembly, may be another option to consider.

RHSeeger 8y ago
> minimalism for the sake of it is not worthwhile It is entirely possible to dislike React for being React, rather than for the fact that it's not minimalism. I have to work with React, and it's a constant source of pain for me.
- Kaveren 8y ago
  What do you dislike not just about React, but categorically about that style of frontend development in general? Framework specific distaste I understand, but general philosophy wise I don't.
zozbot123 8y ago
Minimalism for the sake of good battery life and low website latency is quite worthwhile, though.

nicoburns 8y ago

This depends: If you're advocating for traditional server-rendered websites (perhaps with very small bits of interactivity via JS), then you're #3: A backend developer. If you're suggesting building a complex client-side app, just without a framework, then I reckon that this is just a variant of #1. But you'd better be a very experienced developer, or your code is going to be a complete mess. This isn't really a viable path for a new developer just starting out.

ng12 8y ago

If your projects are simple enough that using a framework is a bad idea it's a waste of money to hire the #1 types.

andybak 8y ago
It's this binary distinction I'm objecting to. Is the choice really "Wordpress" or "React"? There's a huge number of projects that don't fit either of these templates very well. I'd still argue that people building web "sites" (which can still be way beyond the complexity sweet spot for Wordpress) rather than web "apps" should not be building SPAs.

tracker1 8y ago

Define "heavy." Right now I have react, material-ui and a handful of libraries in an application with an initial load (through main entry point) under 80k gzipped, and under 300k total load (1.6mb in memory, which includes app configuration data) when you navigate through to an area with graphs. This also includes SVG manipulation and image overlays. In terms of what is being done, I'm far more judicious with removing unnecessary libraries. I've followed up other developers removing any number of modules in favor of hand-crafting from baseline modules. Since it's JSS it includes semi-dynamic styling that is based on async loaded modules. ex: if you don't go onto a chart/graph page, you don't get those modules. It really depends on your tooling, knowledge and what your needs are. IMHO it's far better than typical jquery + bootstrap + bootstrap extensions that many of those who look down on client-side frameworks lean towards.