14 ms·

The ecosystem of JavaScript frameworks is almost unbelievably unstable. Popularity isn't a measure of quality of course, but if you're going to make a statemen

The ecosystem of JavaScript frameworks is almost unbelievably unstable. Popularity isn't a measure of quality of course, but if you're going to make a statement like "JavaScript frameworks are almost unbelievably unstable" you probably ought to cite some sort of evidence for that because reality is very much against you. There are about 10,000,000 React websites[1] compared to 95,000 Rails[2] websites. There are 325,000,000 websites that use JS[3] I mean, JS can't be that bad in the face of those numbers, can it? JS developers aren't all getting it wrong are they? [1] https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/React https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/React [2] https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Ruby https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Ruby [3] https://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/traffic/Entire-Internet https://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/traffic/Entire-Inter...

Havoc 5y ago
That's like saying there are X million humans driving therefore humans can't be that bad at driving. There is really not much of a connection between those dots
- onion2k 5y ago
  Humans are amazing at driving. Given how many billions of miles are driven every day, the number of accidents is mind-bogglingly tiny. You'd think there would be many, many more. That is quite a good analogy to JS actually.
andybak 5y ago
I don't understand how the numbers you've posted here support your argument. You said it yourself "Popularity isn't a measure of quality" and then go on to imply that it does.
- onion2k 5y ago
  I'm not suggesting JS is particularly high quality; I'm just saying that it's not completely broken. There's a middle-ground where it can be both good enough quality to be usable, and good enough to not be considered broken. Given the fact JS is used by hundreds of thousands of developers it is obviously not totally broken, so if you're going to say it is you need some very strong evidence to back that up. Half the time when I see "JS is so broken!" posts they're by Ruby devs. I can't help wonder why they're all so keen to move away from Ruby.
  - andybak 5y ago
    I know we're not supposed to say "did you read the article" around here but there was a fair amount of nuance in it and you don't sound like you disagree with it in any huge sense. > Half the time when I see "JS is so broken!" posts they're by Ruby devs. I can't help wonder why they're all so keen to move away from Ruby. That's an interesting assumption. I would have started from the position that javascript is a mainly a front-end solution so one wouldn't "move away from Ruby" to use it because you would still use Ruby on the back end.

Havoc 5y ago

That's like saying there are X million humans driving therefore humans can't be that bad at driving. There is really not much of a connection between those dots

onion2k 5y ago
Humans are amazing at driving. Given how many billions of miles are driven every day, the number of accidents is mind-bogglingly tiny. You'd think there would be many, many more. That is quite a good analogy to JS actually.

andybak 5y ago

I don't understand how the numbers you've posted here support your argument. You said it yourself "Popularity isn't a measure of quality" and then go on to imply that it does.

onion2k 5y ago
I'm not suggesting JS is particularly high quality; I'm just saying that it's not completely broken. There's a middle-ground where it can be both good enough quality to be usable, and good enough to not be considered broken. Given the fact JS is used by hundreds of thousands of developers it is obviously not totally broken, so if you're going to say it is you need some very strong evidence to back that up. Half the time when I see "JS is so broken!" posts they're by Ruby devs. I can't help wonder why they're all so keen to move away from Ruby.
- andybak 5y ago
  I know we're not supposed to say "did you read the article" around here but there was a fair amount of nuance in it and you don't sound like you disagree with it in any huge sense. > Half the time when I see "JS is so broken!" posts they're by Ruby devs. I can't help wonder why they're all so keen to move away from Ruby. That's an interesting assumption. I would have started from the position that javascript is a mainly a front-end solution so one wouldn't "move away from Ruby" to use it because you would still use Ruby on the back end.