4 ms·

That's only an "issue" of all that "modern" stuff. Many, many years ago I've used Dojo[1] and it's component lib Dijit. It had all that complex widgets in the

That's only an "issue" of all that "modern" stuff. Many, many years ago I've used Dojo[1] and it's component lib Dijit. It had all that complex widgets in the toolbox. With all the "advantage" stuff like ARIA and internalization. Or you could use Ext, if you could pay it. But than all this "modern 'component' stuff" came form nowhere and you've been back to stone age, where you didn't have even the most basic components (like dialogs or menus) OOTB for many years to come. [1] https://dojotoolkit.org/ https://dojotoolkit.org/ PS: Did I actually mention that Dojo managed to deliver updates for over 10 years without breaking the API? ;-) PPS: They invented AMD by the way (the by far most sane JS module system). PPPS: Require.js was more or less an (extended) rewrite of the ansync Dojo loader. (I think even the same people involved). And this stuff exited at a time people where just discovering jQuery, even before the jQ "hype".

freehunter 6y ago
That’s how I feel about all of this Javascript stuff after coming from Rails. You mean I have to do [insert basically anything] all on my own, from scratch? But Rails gave me all of that out of the box!
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Which is why I am glad that in what concerns Web projects, I keep getting those where SSR does most of the work, with selected pieces of JS for the frontend.
- cookiecaper 6y ago
  It's not just Rails, it's basically any semi-modern development toolkit. JavaScript's minimal standard library is one of its biggest flaws and one of the richest sources of exploitation, as exemplified by the left-pad fiasco. It's not even about the standard lib as much as the culture. Ignoring the fact that it would take years for the changes to become widespread enough to be usable, "pull in 400MB of dependencies for everything, including dependencies of dependencies" is practically a cultural value in the JS scene. It demonstrates why JS is voluntarily practiced primarily by the inexperienced all these years after it established itself as the universal platform.
still_grokking 6y ago
It's funny to see facts down-voted by an usually well informed and rational public. :-D Still, facts are facts, no matter how sloppy the wording I've chose. I didn't mean to diminish the effort put into that one incarnation of those so called design systems. I've only mentioned that it's (like all others of the "modern" ones I've seen until now) light years behind what you could have got 10+ years ago. If I would like to really offend some people here I would have said that actually Visual Basic 6 was far more advanced than today's "web component libraries" when it comes to building GUIs. Most likely this could be even proved: One would only need to build (from scratch) a typical GUI for some business app with web-tech and VB6 against a timer. I know on which tech I would bet delivering results faster. ;-) Not that I'm saying a VB6 app would be a proper replacement for a web app, that's not the point. But the productivity of web tech for application development is just somewhere on the level of 20 years ago. But the down-voters are likely just to young to know that. So the down-votes are likely fine. :-)
- duderific 6y ago
  > But the productivity of web tech for application development is just somewhere on the level of 20 years ago To be fair, the web was never meant to be an application development platform. It has only become that because of the ubiquity of the web, and the many advantages that web applications confer (multi-platform, instant updates etc.) Given that, it's not surprising that the web application space continues to evolve as new solutions are tried, iterated and adopted widely, or abandoned.
  - still_grokking 6y ago
    > the web was never meant to be an application development platform That! Exactly that! That's the point. But for some strange reasons people get offended if you tell them this. Maybe because you telling them they're using the wrong tool? Even if it's obvious? ;-)
  - crubier 6y ago
    Indeed the web was not initially meant to be an application development platform. But it has been meant to be one now for 10+ years, basically since chrome arrived, along with ideas like chrome OS and others... And as a matter of fact it is now the most ubiquitous application development platform.

freehunter 6y ago

That’s how I feel about all of this Javascript stuff after coming from Rails. You mean I have to do [insert basically anything] all on my own, from scratch? But Rails gave me all of that out of the box!

pjmlp 6y ago
Which is why I am glad that in what concerns Web projects, I keep getting those where SSR does most of the work, with selected pieces of JS for the frontend.
cookiecaper 6y ago
It's not just Rails, it's basically any semi-modern development toolkit. JavaScript's minimal standard library is one of its biggest flaws and one of the richest sources of exploitation, as exemplified by the left-pad fiasco. It's not even about the standard lib as much as the culture. Ignoring the fact that it would take years for the changes to become widespread enough to be usable, "pull in 400MB of dependencies for everything, including dependencies of dependencies" is practically a cultural value in the JS scene. It demonstrates why JS is voluntarily practiced primarily by the inexperienced all these years after it established itself as the universal platform.

still_grokking 6y ago

It's funny to see facts down-voted by an usually well informed and rational public. :-D Still, facts are facts, no matter how sloppy the wording I've chose. I didn't mean to diminish the effort put into that one incarnation of those so called design systems. I've only mentioned that it's (like all others of the "modern" ones I've seen until now) light years behind what you could have got 10+ years ago. If I would like to really offend some people here I would have said that actually Visual Basic 6 was far more advanced than today's "web component libraries" when it comes to building GUIs. Most likely this could be even proved: One would only need to build (from scratch) a typical GUI for some business app with web-tech and VB6 against a timer. I know on which tech I would bet delivering results faster. ;-) Not that I'm saying a VB6 app would be a proper replacement for a web app, that's not the point. But the productivity of web tech for application development is just somewhere on the level of 20 years ago. But the down-voters are likely just to young to know that. So the down-votes are likely fine. :-)

duderific 6y ago
> But the productivity of web tech for application development is just somewhere on the level of 20 years ago To be fair, the web was never meant to be an application development platform. It has only become that because of the ubiquity of the web, and the many advantages that web applications confer (multi-platform, instant updates etc.) Given that, it's not surprising that the web application space continues to evolve as new solutions are tried, iterated and adopted widely, or abandoned.
- still_grokking 6y ago
  > the web was never meant to be an application development platform That! Exactly that! That's the point. But for some strange reasons people get offended if you tell them this. Maybe because you telling them they're using the wrong tool? Even if it's obvious? ;-)
- crubier 6y ago
  Indeed the web was not initially meant to be an application development platform. But it has been meant to be one now for 10+ years, basically since chrome arrived, along with ideas like chrome OS and others... And as a matter of fact it is now the most ubiquitous application development platform.