3 ms·

> I think I agree with most things except easy to learn... Every time I want to get back into programming, the complexity of javascriot frameworks, the infinite

by kodah 5y ago

> I think I agree with most things except easy to learn... Every time I want to get back into programming, the complexity of javascriot frameworks, the infinite variety of ephemeral choices, bounces me right out. The Javascript ecosystem is dismal. It's very disparate and there's a million ways to do one simple task, compounding that is that things that sound like simple tasks, like rendering a page, are actually not. If you want a place to start, where the ecosystem is fairly beginner friendly and consolidated, checkout Vue and Nuxt.js. I recently explored every possible frontend for Go that I could find: desktop, web, or otherwise. The fact is that HTML, JS, and CSS still produce the best experience for the end user. Vue and Nuxt made it really easy to produce a hybrid Server Side Rendered and Client Side Rendered (aka Universal) app with still a significant amount of effort, but with that effort directly improving my UI rather than my build environment or configuration.

no_wizard 5y ago
I think this is true when you just constantly reach for frameworks. It’s fine to do so, but knowing the core primitives of the language and the DOM can get you very far without having to reach into a bucket of libraries from npm. As for bundling, there was and will always be tools, people like to think it was just throwing script tags onto a page before npm and the modern packaging ecosystem happened but that’s not really true. At the heigh of jQuerys popularity there were (and are) entire CDNs devoted to serving it and its plugins (which many evolved to serve all kinds of different pre-packed JS bundles) as was a myriad of concatenation tools that even pre-existed before nodejs I remember namespacing and dynamic loading tools too. I can’t remember their names anymore but this is not a new thing. It’s always been volume and choice. It’s much bigger today than it was back then but it’s always been this way as far as I can remember
austincheney 5y ago
You are misusing the word simple. Simple means fewer, which is quite different from easy which means low effort, straight forward, or less learning.
- kodah 5y ago
  I definitely meant simple. To the average newcomer to Javascript, what they're familiar with is server side rendering. An HTML page is sent from the server, the markup is rendered, and bam - a page. Now, go tell this newcomer that you don't actually need a server to serve multiple web pages, it can just serve one! Client side rendering with a client side router is a pretty far departure from what even experienced programmers know about the world. Now, go tell this newcomer that you can absolutely still render components from the server without redrawing the whole page. They'll enjoy this until they run into the limits and constructs of SSR. Again, a pretty far departure from send a whole page. Now, go tell this newcomer you can do both at once, and that often it's beneficial to do so. You have taken what was a very simple task and made it quite complex.

by kodah 5y ago

no_wizard 5y ago

I think this is true when you just constantly reach for frameworks. It’s fine to do so, but knowing the core primitives of the language and the DOM can get you very far without having to reach into a bucket of libraries from npm. As for bundling, there was and will always be tools, people like to think it was just throwing script tags onto a page before npm and the modern packaging ecosystem happened but that’s not really true. At the heigh of jQuerys popularity there were (and are) entire CDNs devoted to serving it and its plugins (which many evolved to serve all kinds of different pre-packed JS bundles) as was a myriad of concatenation tools that even pre-existed before nodejs I remember namespacing and dynamic loading tools too. I can’t remember their names anymore but this is not a new thing. It’s always been volume and choice. It’s much bigger today than it was back then but it’s always been this way as far as I can remember

austincheney 5y ago

You are misusing the word simple. Simple means fewer, which is quite different from easy which means low effort, straight forward, or less learning.

kodah 5y ago
I definitely meant simple. To the average newcomer to Javascript, what they're familiar with is server side rendering. An HTML page is sent from the server, the markup is rendered, and bam - a page. Now, go tell this newcomer that you don't actually need a server to serve multiple web pages, it can just serve one! Client side rendering with a client side router is a pretty far departure from what even experienced programmers know about the world. Now, go tell this newcomer that you can absolutely still render components from the server without redrawing the whole page. They'll enjoy this until they run into the limits and constructs of SSR. Again, a pretty far departure from send a whole page. Now, go tell this newcomer you can do both at once, and that often it's beneficial to do so. You have taken what was a very simple task and made it quite complex.