3 ms·
I didn't believe that was an actual quote from the article until I read it. It sounds like a joke and I can't imagine anyone reasonable would say that. There a
by xmprt 6y ago
I didn't believe that was an actual quote from the article until I read it. It sounds like a joke and I can't imagine anyone reasonable would say that.
There are definitely good reasons to build your own framework but performant and stable applications isn't one of them. Usually it's a solution looking for a problem.
- untog 6y agoIn fairness the decision was made in 2009. I still don’t think it was the right decision but it feels a lot more understandable to have made that choice when looking at the frameworks available in 09 rather than 2020.
- chrisco255 6y agoWas this a front end web framework or back end?
- imslavko 6y agoI never worked at Asana but I heard it was both, it had code sharing between client and server, some server-side javascript before node.js (I think it was based on JSC) and something similar to isomorphic javascript before this term was coined by Airbnb. If you look at Meteor, a lot of similar ideas migrated there.
- dgb23 6y agoBy this logic nobody would ever build a framework designed around performance and stability?
- wbl 6y agoStability is the result of smoothing out bugs the hard way. A new framework has bugs, you just haven't found them yet.
- jayparth 6y agoWhat? Facebook built react to solve these problems. When they built Luna stuff like react didn't exist. Investing in developer tooling including frameworks is a fine use of time and often pays off hugely. There wasn't a better alternative 11 years ago.