4 ms·
As I said, I freelance. So don't worry, because I'm not planning to hire you ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) > Also with regards to using something like unpkg URLs in built code,
by timdaub 6y ago
As I said, I freelance. So don't worry, because I'm not planning to hire you ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
> Also with regards to using something like unpkg URLs in built code, whilst I a not completely against using urls for dependencies (ala deno), isn't there the huge risk that without pulling dependencies in at build time, those URLs will break or become overloaded or compromised?
In my post, I said I use unpkg for prototypes, so I don't think it's a problem. But in any case, unpkg let's you pin a version:
unpkg.com/:package@:version/:file
- antihero 6y agoNo worries buddy, and I think that it's important that you enjoy using something that works for you. I just thought it prudent to point out the limited scope of certain approaches as there's a lot of people trying to push this kind of simplicty into situations where it is less appropriate (in my opinion).
- tomaszs 6y agoI'd rather see more of a chase for simplicity these days. It is the hallmark of good project. However today the opposite is popular.
- Chris_Newton 6y agoIndeed. If 40-something me could go back in time and tell 20-something me what I’d learned in my career so far, one of the first lessons would be that simplicity scales and endures like almost nothing else and is probably the most underrated virtue in software development. (Composability would be #2.) That is not to say that complexity is never necessary. Sometimes we are trying to solve inherently complex problems. But there is a disturbing amount of accidental complexity in modern web development. To make things worse, because web development is such a huge part of the software industry now and how so many people have come into that industry, a whole generation of developers is growing up believing that the accidental complexity is necessary or even desirable.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- antihero 6y agoI've been trying to move away from things like create-react-app and towards things like Parcel, but pretty most statically typed stack has some sort "compile time" typechecking that would be needless to have in the browser. Ergo, expecting the browser to do everything we want to provide a development environment is going to be a tough call. It would be lush if Firefox and Chrome supported TypeScript natively, but it would always lag behind I think.
- flippinburgers 6y agoI currently am working on a typescript + react + redux application. The number of times I have had a developer on my team tell me that a change will be hard is disturbingly high. In vanilla javascript it would be a simple sixty minute change. I actually really like typescript but I am unaware of being able to use it without very obnoxious things like webpack being involved.
- tomaszs 6y agoWith React and Redux everything is hard. These are two worst mainstream libraries out there. It so bad, even Typescript can not help too much.
- antihero 6y agoIt really isn't, though? I think redux introduces a LOT of complexity and much prefer something like Mobx-State-Tree, but React has been a total breeze.
- tomaszs 6y agoFor me it is still surprising how much time and effort you have to take to solve problems that was actually solved years ago. But I can understand that for beginners, or people that used vanilla JS or jQuery React is a step forward. For me, it is a big step backwards.
- antihero 6y agoI can't wait 'till Parcel 2 is stable, but yeah with Parcel you just include it and boom, it works. Adapting existing projects is harder though.