5 ms·
It most certainly is actionable advice, but it's usefulness depends on how well you take blunt advice.
by castis 7y ago
It most certainly is actionable advice, but it's usefulness depends on how well you take blunt advice.
- enraged_camel 7y agoWhat exactly is actionable about it? Just curious.
- castis 7y agoGoogle the inverse question "how to build good software" and dont stop reading until you die?
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoThat's like googling "how to eat right" - it's going to be 99% unhelpful and contradictory.
- chrshawkes 7y agoUnhelpful advice. Typical programmer up his own ass bullshit really. Oh that ways not good. Well what's good? I don't know, just not that. Look at how many clowns criticize jQuery these days as an example of garbage software.
- benbristow 7y agojQuery isn't garbage as per se. It's a great library for directly querying & manipulating the DOM. Trying to make web applications with it is another story though. The lack of any state management is a nightmare, hence declarative frameworks/libraries such as React/Angular(JS)/Vue/Svelte etc. etc. came along.
- lacampbell 7y agoThe lack of any state management is a nightmare What makes the lack of state management a nightmare in the javascript world, but a complete non-issue when doing .NET or Qt apps? As someone who started with desktop apps and then moved into web dev, I never really understood why Javascript developers wanted a library to help them manage state.
- jimmaswell 7y agoThe criticism makes no sense to me. jQuery is just there to make things nicer that you'd already be doing. It doesn't need to be an MVC framework.
- benbristow 7y agoFor example, React isn’t an MVC framework. It’s a library. It allows rendering DOM declaratively based upon a state/props. jQuery just changes the DOM. It gets very difficult to keep the DOM in sync with the JavaScript backed data when there’s multiple moving parts.
- lacampbell 7y agojQuery just changes the DOM. It gets very difficult to keep the DOM in sync with the JavaScript backed data when there’s multiple moving parts. Again I don't understand this argument. What's difficult about it? People have been doing it with win forms for well over a decade now.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Again I don't understand this argument. What's difficult about it? People have been doing it with win forms for well over a decade now. And yet it's recognized as a problem there, too, and one of the more recent solutions is state management libraries inspired by those used in Web apps, e.g., there are fairly direct copies/adaptations of React and Redux for .NET specifically to address this issue.
- gnaritas 7y agoSo don't use javascript backed data; use your ajax calls to fetch new pieces of UI, not data. Keep your data on the server, send chunks of UI to the client rather than json.
- asark 7y agoAll the state management stuff seems to be tied up in (=synonymous with) attempts to purify JS frameworks and codebases, as in "purely functional". It's... kinda silly and far removed from either the problem at hand, or the strengths of Javascript (such as they are) much of the time. Meanwhile objects representing various parts of the view, and plenty of models that don't look much like "modern" JS state management, remain the norm elsewhere, and the sky is not falling. I do not know what to make of it. I go along with it when in that sort of company—when in Rome, and all that—but the evangelism can be pretty funny. Anyway a bunch of the stuff isn't half as special as you'd think reading about it through the usual channels. Redux? A data cache and a so-so local event bus with somewhat awkward semantics and a few really bad terminology choices thrown in. Whee. There's your "state management". Not that it's useless, but you'd swear it's black magic reading all the blog posts about it.
- FussyZeus 7y agoI think jQuery got a bad rap because so many script kiddies would drop the entire damn framework into a page when they just didn't feel like writing a standard selector to do a mobile menu.
- chews 7y agofunny, that is the pattern I use, I don't consider it kiddy... it's just efficiant and easy to drop in. le sigh
- FussyZeus 7y agoI mean, if all you're doing is showing and hiding a mobile menu, you can do that in a really expanded form in like 5 lines of vanilla JS, and not have your user download 90 KB* of crap. *And you BETTER be using the minified version for production.
- Roboprog 7y ago90 KB is probably bad for a marketing page, but it’s nothing for a B2B or internal use app, particularly when the second use is just the “you already have it” HTTP header response. Good or bad depending on context.
- johnisgood 7y agoIs bloat sometimes a good thing?
- FussyZeus 7y agoI don't disagree, but when so many public websites are unloading megabytes of Javascript for simple tasks, it feels like that attitude is the core problem. I'm not opposed to using frameworks when they're needed, I just have a problem with people using them to shorten up already short and very easy code because they can't be bothered to Google for a few minutes.
- castis 7y agoMaybe it would be more helpful if I also put on a hostile attitude?
- chrshawkes 7y agoI'm not being hostile, I apologize if you took it that way. I'm just making a point about how so many dev's claim to have the right answer until you need to rely on them to get something done. Projects turn to a mess mostly due to things one single person cannot control. I don't know a single person, including myself, who've thought that their code didn't look like shit 6 months to a year down the road. I think we always get better and we'll always criticize what we don't know and understand. This includes mountains of other peoples code (garbage or not).
- buzzerbetrayed 7y ago> I apologize if you took it that way Placing the blame on him when you were the one being hostile is hostile.
- johnisgood 7y agoHe did just apologize in case that person perceived something hostile when it was not meant to be hostile. He should not have apologized it seems. Damned if you do, damned if you do not.