3 ms·
The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling. I know people still using AngularJS 1.x because it is too difficult or painful to rewrite it
by ArchOversight 6y ago
The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling.
I know people still using AngularJS 1.x because it is too difficult or painful to rewrite it into another framework that is more up to date.
I've recently been working on updating a project from Bootstrap 3 to Bootstrap 4, similar pains are involved.
- ricardobeat 6y ago> The same could be said about any framework or language or tooling That's simply not true. The knowledge of Tailwind's class names, media queries, and tooling is not transferrable, whereas styled-jsx/styled components/css modules/emotion are all still based on CSS syntax and applying classes, moving between them is vastly easier than to/from a framework like Tailwind.
- ArchOversight 6y agoMoving from AngularJS to React is not the same either. Understanding the way that data moves through AngularJS does not map directly to the way that React moves data through the system or how AngularJS updates the DOM vs React and all the idiosyncrasies involved. Same is said for moving from Bootstrap to some other way of managing your styling. Different tools have different naming, different "class names", different "media queries", and different "tooling". I can't take my direct knowledge of Bootstrap 3 and use it in a styled-JSX world. Moving between frameworks is always going to be difficult and require rethinking how things are built.
- ricardobeat 6y agoThat was about CSS/styling frameworks only. Unlike application frameworks, the underlying tech and knowledge of CSS is the same, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.