4 ms·

> Your manager or project owner or whoever says "we want a webapp" are you gonna stick your neck out and argue against it? The question is: what are you going

by ng12 7y ago

> Your manager or project owner or whoever says "we want a webapp" are you gonna stick your neck out and argue against it? The question is: what are you going to argue for instead? Not using the web at all is a non-starter, especially in the retail space where you'd get killed by a web-based competitor. I don't know what your experience is, but historically my bosses haven't given half of a damn what tech stack I use. They care that I deliver on what I promise. Hypothetically, I could still be using PHP/HTML/jQuery but there are a great many reasons I don't and not one of them has to do with padding my resume.

asark 7y ago
I mean SPAs and near-SPAs. "Web apps". Web sites as in mostly server-rendered sites with HTML, CSS, and some JS sugar on top could sub in for an awful lot of "web apps" and improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost. [EDIT] incidentally I notice you keep arguing against things I've not actually written.
- ng12 7y ago
  It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. The bits about peacocking and resume-padding are... unconvincing. > ...improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost. I don't buy it at all. As mentioned, I've done both professionally and there are reasons I keep picking React (or a hybrid ala Next) that don't involve a bigger paycheck or "peacocking".
  - asark 7y ago
    It's usually companies or management/product folks paying for their product to have the peacock feathers. See also: flat/material redesigns not to improve usability—in fact it may make it worse—but to avoid "looking old", not because users complained or metrics look bad but because someone with a budget guesses maybe they might. Similar with choices to make fairly simple sites into heavy SPAs with questionable performance. > It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. I appreciate it. Seriously!

by ng12 7y ago

asark 7y ago

I mean SPAs and near-SPAs. "Web apps". Web sites as in mostly server-rendered sites with HTML, CSS, and some JS sugar on top could sub in for an awful lot of "web apps" and improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost. [EDIT] incidentally I notice you keep arguing against things I've not actually written.

ng12 7y ago
It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. The bits about peacocking and resume-padding are... unconvincing. > ...improve UX, performance, maintainability, and development cost. I don't buy it at all. As mentioned, I've done both professionally and there are reasons I keep picking React (or a hybrid ala Next) that don't involve a bigger paycheck or "peacocking".
- asark 7y ago
  It's usually companies or management/product folks paying for their product to have the peacock feathers. See also: flat/material redesigns not to improve usability—in fact it may make it worse—but to avoid "looking old", not because users complained or metrics look bad but because someone with a budget guesses maybe they might. Similar with choices to make fairly simple sites into heavy SPAs with questionable performance. > It's because I've been trying very hard to understand what your contention is. I appreciate it. Seriously!