4 ms·

> What is possible today that was very hard to do 10 years ago in web dev land? Declaratively writing components and reusing behavior (e.g., hooks) across comp

> What is possible today that was very hard to do 10 years ago in web dev land? Declaratively writing components and reusing behavior (e.g., hooks) across components/applications was basically impossible with the tools of 10 years ago. The benefit to the user is more stable interfaces and a faster release rate.

dahfizz 6y ago
> benefit to the user is more stable interfaces Doubt. Websites are constantly redesigning their interfaces so that they can use the latest trendy technology.
- arvinsim 6y ago
  Why blame developers? Why not the designers or product managers?
- phailhaus 6y ago
  Is that the fault of the frameworks for existing? That's like saying we'd be better off if we didn't have so many programming languages.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tobyhinloopen 6y ago
I totally disagree. Reusable components were already there using jquery plugins. Everyone used them and they were easy to use and easy to install. They were deployed as a single file, with optional CSS. Try writing a reusable component now. You have to target all major frameworks and tooling.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  I think you may be conflating components and good old fashioned libraries. You can certainly make a component into a library but that's not their main use case. Their main use-case is for organization and reusability within a singular codebase. I write reusable components all the time inside my codebases. I never have to target anything except the stack I'm using for my project.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Components as jQuery plugins aren’t encapsulated or easily composable. What do you do if two plugins used the same namespace or class names? How would you put one component inside another?
ratww 6y ago
In Javascript, maybe, but frameworks like WebForms already had 1st-party components (called "user controls") back in the early 2000s. Granted, it was server-side only. Hooks are a tough one (they're very specific to reactive frameworks), but we did have other kinds of abstractions that provided similar benefits.

dahfizz 6y ago

> benefit to the user is more stable interfaces Doubt. Websites are constantly redesigning their interfaces so that they can use the latest trendy technology.

arvinsim 6y ago
Why blame developers? Why not the designers or product managers?
phailhaus 6y ago
Is that the fault of the frameworks for existing? That's like saying we'd be better off if we didn't have so many programming languages.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tobyhinloopen 6y ago

I totally disagree. Reusable components were already there using jquery plugins. Everyone used them and they were easy to use and easy to install. They were deployed as a single file, with optional CSS. Try writing a reusable component now. You have to target all major frameworks and tooling.

Grimm1 6y ago
I think you may be conflating components and good old fashioned libraries. You can certainly make a component into a library but that's not their main use case. Their main use-case is for organization and reusability within a singular codebase. I write reusable components all the time inside my codebases. I never have to target anything except the stack I'm using for my project.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Components as jQuery plugins aren’t encapsulated or easily composable. What do you do if two plugins used the same namespace or class names? How would you put one component inside another?

ratww 6y ago

In Javascript, maybe, but frameworks like WebForms already had 1st-party components (called "user controls") back in the early 2000s. Granted, it was server-side only. Hooks are a tough one (they're very specific to reactive frameworks), but we did have other kinds of abstractions that provided similar benefits.