9 ms·

You got that wrong. Modern JavaScript / SPAs make it possible to implement something like Outlook right within your browser. No (big) download, no clicking thro

You got that wrong. Modern JavaScript / SPAs make it possible to implement something like Outlook right within your browser. No (big) download, no clicking through an installation wizard, no fragmentation of versions for a tool, which forces you to be online anyway. I don't get all the hate towards SPAs and JavaScript Frameworks here on HN. Everyone is basically complaining about complexity for applications, which are more than just a server-rendered form or message board (which is a way less complex applications compared to outlook or slack, where "realtime notification" is a requirement). Application programming became easier by a lot, just the application requirements grew at the same speed, resulting in that feeling of stagnation. With something like zustand[1] or the react context api, its just ~10 lines of code to store the dark-mode boolean somewhere central in the app and connect it to all the components without prop drilling. [1] https://github.com/react-spring/zustand https://github.com/react-spring/zustand

goatlover 7y ago
But is React simpler for building UIs than the RAD tooling of Visual Basic, Delphi or the Flash Designer? Obviously there is the advantage of the web platform to leverage with JS frameworks, but there was something really nice about being able to drag and drop standard controls that all users were familiar with, and then just attach some code to them that talked to a database or whatever. I think that was the Parent's point that modern web development, while having the advantages of the web, is still more complicated than what was popular a decade or two ago for making UIs.
- k__ 7y ago
  "is React simpler for building UIs than the RAD tooling of Visual Basic, Delphi or the Flash Designer" I asked something like this too, but the other way around. "If Flash, Delphi, etc. were so good, where are they now?" The answers were: These tools were good for one developer or small teams, but textual dev tools scaled better to big teams.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Delphi is "textual" as well - the designer works with text files (*.dfm) that describe the component tree. Very similar to JSON, but with more Pascal-like syntax. People mostly used the designer because it was easier - but then again, in that era, it was also common for people to use e.g. Dreamweaver to write HTML.
    - k__ 7y ago
      Maybe, getting into development got easier? I mean, while these graphical tools certainly help, you have to learn them. I learned things like Photoshop, Sketch, Ableton Live, Final Cut Pro, Eclipse, etc. pp. and I can tell that it's a huge time investment to get up and running. Maybe coding is that much easier, that people invest their time into this instead of a UI builder? Maybe people got burned by Flash and now want to invest into somthing that lasts longer?
      - int_19h 7y ago
        GUI designers of the RAD era were much easier than Photoshop or Flash, and certainly easier than writing it out by hand. That's precisely why they became so popular.
        k__ 7y ago
        But why didn't they stay popular? Did the Flash disaster cast fear into people? Did Web-tech based systems perform so much better, business wise, than native desktop apps?
        int_19h 7y ago
        The most popular frameworks with the best tooling weren't cross-platform. VB, Delphi, .NET/WinForms (and later WPF) were all Windows-only. Delphi briefly played with Kylix, but it was very messy. Then you had Qt, which is a very Delphi-like take on GUI in C++, and was cross-platform - but it didn't have the integrated tooling on par with the other stuff, and of course the language being C++ raised the learning bar significantly. Qt is much better these days, thanks to Qt Creator - although C++ is still a stumbling block there. But in the meantime, web apps took over - and that was before stuff like React. I don't think that had anything to do with ease of development, but rather with ease of deployment (or rather lack of it) - it's much easier to get people to use your app right there in the browser than it is to have them download and install it. So web won not because of its technical superiority, but despite it - and then dragged the desktop down (Electron etc) as a result.
timw4mail 7y ago
Nobody asked for stupid native-level functionality nonsense in the browser. It takes too much Javascript, which is not efficient to parse or run, and is usually wasted on "looking/feeling fancy", not actual functionality.
- Eire_Banshee 7y ago
  Looking and feeling fancy is often what sells though... that is ultimately more important.
bcrosby95 7y ago
I find lots of these "requirements" come from developers that are bored with their job and need to spice things up.
- kody 7y ago
  Or are trying to follow fads so they're more employable (resume-driven development?) Which is a strategy I am not criticizing in the slightest. It can suck when it means the whole team has to learn the fad framework, though.
  - karatestomp 7y ago
    This is definitely a thing. Lots of tech choices are made for that reason, not just front end frameworks, as I'm sure you know. But there's no incentive to put one's foot down and declare that the emperor, indeed, has no clothes, so we keep praising his fashion sense and taking home our pay. This is true for developers at all levels, project managers, CTOs, and so on. Every one of them becomes more employable—easier to find the next job, next job's higher-paying—for having lead or been a member of a team using inappropriate or sub-optimal but trendy or "serious" tools. "No one got fired for choosing..." has extended to a ton of trendy crap, a fair bit of it half-baked, and you're not only safer but also better off financially than if you risk suggesting anything else, even if "standard" solutions slow down development, require more and more expensive people (that's the point, you want to be one of those!), and make your systems more fragile.
- onesmalldrop 7y ago
  Are you implying realtime notifications on a chat or email service is not a requirement?
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  Maybe! But also, as a user, I expect to do more and more in my browser. I would find it strange, and probably switch to a competitor, if my preferred airline for example made me install (and keep updated) a desktop app in order to book a flight.
wruza 7y ago
> Everyone is basically complaining about complexity for applications, which are more than just a server-rendered form or message board (which is a way less complex applications compared to outlook or slack, where "realtime notification" is a requirement). But we did more than just a server-rendered forms in delphi, vb and others! The hate is not for js or html (well, in this case at least). The hate is for invention of techniques which are hard to explain, follow, justify, implement and reason about. Web had an enormous amount of seasoned and veteran developers around the world and threw this resource out the window by going a new fancy way of history repeating, which presumably no one did before and no one knew names for new methods when they appeared. React/Redux is ST by the way, implemented in a language completely unready for that concept, but it’s unclear if its authors were aware of this at the time it was born.

goatlover 7y ago

But is React simpler for building UIs than the RAD tooling of Visual Basic, Delphi or the Flash Designer? Obviously there is the advantage of the web platform to leverage with JS frameworks, but there was something really nice about being able to drag and drop standard controls that all users were familiar with, and then just attach some code to them that talked to a database or whatever. I think that was the Parent's point that modern web development, while having the advantages of the web, is still more complicated than what was popular a decade or two ago for making UIs.

k__ 7y ago
"is React simpler for building UIs than the RAD tooling of Visual Basic, Delphi or the Flash Designer" I asked something like this too, but the other way around. "If Flash, Delphi, etc. were so good, where are they now?" The answers were: These tools were good for one developer or small teams, but textual dev tools scaled better to big teams.
- int_19h 7y ago
  Delphi is "textual" as well - the designer works with text files (*.dfm) that describe the component tree. Very similar to JSON, but with more Pascal-like syntax. People mostly used the designer because it was easier - but then again, in that era, it was also common for people to use e.g. Dreamweaver to write HTML.
  - k__ 7y ago
    Maybe, getting into development got easier? I mean, while these graphical tools certainly help, you have to learn them. I learned things like Photoshop, Sketch, Ableton Live, Final Cut Pro, Eclipse, etc. pp. and I can tell that it's a huge time investment to get up and running. Maybe coding is that much easier, that people invest their time into this instead of a UI builder? Maybe people got burned by Flash and now want to invest into somthing that lasts longer?
    - int_19h 7y ago
      GUI designers of the RAD era were much easier than Photoshop or Flash, and certainly easier than writing it out by hand. That's precisely why they became so popular.
      - k__ 7y ago
        But why didn't they stay popular? Did the Flash disaster cast fear into people? Did Web-tech based systems perform so much better, business wise, than native desktop apps?
        int_19h 7y ago
        The most popular frameworks with the best tooling weren't cross-platform. VB, Delphi, .NET/WinForms (and later WPF) were all Windows-only. Delphi briefly played with Kylix, but it was very messy. Then you had Qt, which is a very Delphi-like take on GUI in C++, and was cross-platform - but it didn't have the integrated tooling on par with the other stuff, and of course the language being C++ raised the learning bar significantly. Qt is much better these days, thanks to Qt Creator - although C++ is still a stumbling block there. But in the meantime, web apps took over - and that was before stuff like React. I don't think that had anything to do with ease of development, but rather with ease of deployment (or rather lack of it) - it's much easier to get people to use your app right there in the browser than it is to have them download and install it. So web won not because of its technical superiority, but despite it - and then dragged the desktop down (Electron etc) as a result.

timw4mail 7y ago

Nobody asked for stupid native-level functionality nonsense in the browser. It takes too much Javascript, which is not efficient to parse or run, and is usually wasted on "looking/feeling fancy", not actual functionality.

Eire_Banshee 7y ago
Looking and feeling fancy is often what sells though... that is ultimately more important.

bcrosby95 7y ago

I find lots of these "requirements" come from developers that are bored with their job and need to spice things up.

kody 7y ago
Or are trying to follow fads so they're more employable (resume-driven development?) Which is a strategy I am not criticizing in the slightest. It can suck when it means the whole team has to learn the fad framework, though.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  This is definitely a thing. Lots of tech choices are made for that reason, not just front end frameworks, as I'm sure you know. But there's no incentive to put one's foot down and declare that the emperor, indeed, has no clothes, so we keep praising his fashion sense and taking home our pay. This is true for developers at all levels, project managers, CTOs, and so on. Every one of them becomes more employable—easier to find the next job, next job's higher-paying—for having lead or been a member of a team using inappropriate or sub-optimal but trendy or "serious" tools. "No one got fired for choosing..." has extended to a ton of trendy crap, a fair bit of it half-baked, and you're not only safer but also better off financially than if you risk suggesting anything else, even if "standard" solutions slow down development, require more and more expensive people (that's the point, you want to be one of those!), and make your systems more fragile.
onesmalldrop 7y ago
Are you implying realtime notifications on a chat or email service is not a requirement?
veeralpatel979 7y ago
Maybe! But also, as a user, I expect to do more and more in my browser. I would find it strange, and probably switch to a competitor, if my preferred airline for example made me install (and keep updated) a desktop app in order to book a flight.

wruza 7y ago

> Everyone is basically complaining about complexity for applications, which are more than just a server-rendered form or message board (which is a way less complex applications compared to outlook or slack, where "realtime notification" is a requirement). But we did more than just a server-rendered forms in delphi, vb and others! The hate is not for js or html (well, in this case at least). The hate is for invention of techniques which are hard to explain, follow, justify, implement and reason about. Web had an enormous amount of seasoned and veteran developers around the world and threw this resource out the window by going a new fancy way of history repeating, which presumably no one did before and no one knew names for new methods when they appeared. React/Redux is ST by the way, implemented in a language completely unready for that concept, but it’s unclear if its authors were aware of this at the time it was born.