8 ms·

I feel comfortable with asserting that the author has never worked on a complex web application. This web-dev hate borders on pathological: this is a guy that s

I feel comfortable with asserting that the author has never worked on a complex web application. This web-dev hate borders on pathological: this is a guy that seems to specialize in Unix/Linux tooling, doesn't have a single tutorial on web app development [1], and yet has an intense hatred towards a space that he barely understands. These types of arguments are incredibly embarrassing to read, not only because they betray a stunning lack of familiarity with the topic, but it's basically a conspiracy theory: everybody is stupid except me, all these successful companies making billions of dollars and attracting top talent are just throwing money into a fire for fun. [1] https://unixsheikh.com/tutorials.html https://unixsheikh.com/tutorials.html

daveidol 5y ago
Agreed. I was cringing to read this - had a laugh at the Patreon plug at the end of this poorly-written rant about something he clearly has no solid understanding of.
the_only_law 5y ago
Yeah I went back to take a look at what else is in the blog, and his main schtick seems to be hating web development and frameworks, and not even in rational way.
goodpoint 5y ago
Not at all. Having worked on all sort of companies and applications, the author is absolutely right.
BeefWellington 5y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with your take but I think you should be making substantive counter-arguments to what the author wrote. Your post is essentially just attacking the author and of little substance in itself.
- daveidol 5y ago
  Others on here are doing that. A few counterpoints: 1. Electron is cross platform - something the author never even mentions, 2. Really, PHP is the prefect end state for web development of all scale? The lack of even acknowledging these things is what really discredits the author in my book.
- Underphil 5y ago
  Absolutely agreed. The original poster, if more knowledgeable, should set the record straight. Attacking the article without any valid counter is just point-scoring.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  The original article isn't substantive. I mean, c'mon, the entirety of the argument against Electron apps is > They eat up all the memory you have and still ask for more. They constantly crash and has no value over a native desktop application what so ever - well, perhaps with the only exception that now a 2 year old baby can make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse. I'm kind of a curmudgeon about Electron apps, and I'm still reading that and going, "I can't think of a single time I've had an Electron app crash on me, what kind of genius two-year-olds are out there developing in React Native, and what kind of juvenile complaint is 'make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse' (as opposed to native desktop apps, which as we all know are matte black and only take keyboard input). Also, for Strunk & White's sake, 'whatsoever' is one word, and 'they' goes with the verb 'have', not 'has.'" And the whole article is like this. He goes on to complain about PHP templating systems because PHP itself is a templating language, and sure, yes, argument to be made there! Just…not this argument. Most PHP templating systems compile their templates to pure PHP, so if anything is making "the application load four times as slow" it is not that. Then he goes on to tell us "all web servers has a build in router" -- there are either two or three syntax errors in that seven-word sentence, depending on whether you count "build in" for "built-in" as one or two -- and rails against how web frameworks are eschewing web servers' built-in routers (by which we mean…URL requests?) and instead insisting on implementing the revolutionary new (checks notes) front controller pattern. Yes, you're right, web development would be so much easier without that, wouldn't it? Also, while we're here, let's talk about line numbers. Why aren't we still using line numbers? Named functions are for wussies. In my day, we used GOTO both ways uphill in the snow and we liked it! Wait, sorry. Where was I? Anyway, it's actually pretty hard to make "substantive counter-arguments". The article is badly argued and badly written. I would not normally be quite so much of a jerk about the numerous syntax errors, except that this ends with a suggestion that people, you know, pay for this writing. I don't expect perfection (God knows I make tpyos all the time), but the closing paragraph starts with a sentence that literally has no verb. If your entire thesis is "IT people need to do better," well: engineer, heal thyself.
  - bunnythefifth 5y ago
    > I would not normally be quite so much of a jerk about the numerous syntax errors, except that this ends with a suggestion that people, you know, pay for this writing. I don't expect perfection (God knows I make tpyos all the time), but the closing paragraph starts with a sentence that literally has no verb. Are you really bashing the author for imperfect English? The about page clearly mentions that they are not a native speaker of the language, and even apologises for any imperfections in their writing as a result thereof [1]. I strongly agree with your parent comment that attacking the author for presenting their strong views in an area is unnecessary. Make arguments against what they wrote, not who they are. A little kindness also goes a long way. What the hell is this obsession with hammering everyone down with unwarranted negativity on this forum. [1] https://unixsheikh.com/about.html https://unixsheikh.com/about.html
bmeski 5y ago
I work on a massive CMS and he’s correct. There is an insane groupthink going on in webdev. Another team in my org has spent a year reinventing our client side js so that our templates are now mixed with the svelte runtime. All to render/update cards on the page that can update when an api pings the page. So 6 months later they’re still building the svelte integration and have only shipped 2 pages to users. This is a cms where you should be able to create any page via a combination of SSR components but no, now it’s a mix of SSR, SSR svelte within handlebars, and client side svelte. So the edit ui is now a fragmented mess of parts of the page that can and can’t render, ruining the default model of the cms all because they couldn’t bear to write vanilla js. They also added react the year before and now it just sits there decaying. Literally madness.
- resonious 5y ago
  I'm not sure if this one org making a mess is good evidence that there is groupthink occurring in the entire industry. There are places that are using these frameworks well, and it really does improve productivity.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- beebmam 5y ago
  I might find your argument more persuasive if you didn't use such extreme language.
  - bmeski 5y ago
    If you think that is extreme language something is horribly wrong.
    - gmfawcett 5y ago
      Well, you did refer to "vanilla JS" without a trigger warning. :P
- pjmlp 5y ago
superkuh 5y ago
I feel comfortable asserting you've never not used a complex web application, even for your personal non-commercial projects made for fun. The fact that his website (and other projects) is in HTML and doesn't need to be executed is a confirmation of the article ideas not some deficit. You can justify what you do with JS for money however you want but businesses do it that way because managers decided it's cheapest way for many people to collaborate, not because it's the best way for end users, security, or longevity.
- phailhaus 5y ago
  What is the purpose of his website? It is to serve static content. But obviously, his entire rant is against more complex, interactive, and stateful applications. It's strange to argue that because static sites exist, all sites should be static.
  - superkuh 5y ago
    >his entire rant is against more complex, interactive, and stateful applications. ... where they aren't needed. Which is the vast majority of websites, even commercial ones. It's a rare website that actually is an application and not just a means to display text or images.
whack 5y ago
I seem to notice this particularly often with a subset of developers. People who have a very strong "who moved my cheese" mindset. They are used to doing things a certain way. An approach that is simple to understand, but takes a very long time to get anything done. Ie, writing vanilla HTML without any frameworks. Besides, they aren't the ones paying for a team of developers, so they don't really see a downside in spending 1 month to do something that could have been done in a week. And then all of a sudden, everything starts changing. Nobody wants to hire a vanilla JS/HTML developer anymore, they want react developers. And these react kiddies are able to put together a webapp that looks so much nicer, has more functionality, and they are able to do it in less time. They decide to try learning react, but find themselves with a tough problem they haven't dealt with in a while - being outside their comfort zone. They are so used to doing things a certain way. They know exactly how to do it. They can do it blindfolded. And all of a sudden, they find themselves having to change everything up. Overnight, they go from feeling like experts to feeling like novices. And they hate it. If they pushed through it, they would eventually gain mastery over it and learn to evaluate this new technology fairly on its merits. But they never do master this new technology. Feeling like a newbie is too psychologically painful. But they also recognize how much of a disadvantage they are at by not riding this wave that is taking over the industry. And so, rather than expressing indifference or acknowledging personal taste, they lash out with tremendous resentment and anger. > No, I will not be polite and call it something else because it is truly sheer stupidity. In the so-called modern day it's like everyone - except a few - has dropped their brain on the floor. Has everyone except the "unix greybeards" gone mad!? I get it. Change is scary. But it gets even scarier when you try to resist it instead of embracing it.
- phist_mcgee 5y ago
  You've hit the nail on the head. Greybeards now literally have grey beards. It must be hard to have pioneered software development, and watch it change under your feet at an escalating rate. I think the measures of a good engineer in the 80s/90s was more focused around 'hacker' culture. Speed, memory footprint, 'cleverness'. These days, a good engineer can scale, be flexible, and is a polyglot. I think the goal posts have shifted for the old schoolers, and it may be just one of those things. As they say, evolve or die.
blub 5y ago
I've been critical of so-called web apps for quite a bit more than a decade now. It's not the hate that was pathological, it was the obsession of taking a platform designed for displaying documents and transforming it into an application distribution platform. And after untold man hours and billions spent, the results are still inferior. That's where the "hate" is coming from. Seeing such an incredible waste while at the same time being lectured on the greatness of the web is intolerable for anyone that has seen what a quality piece of software looks and feels like.
_xnmw 5y ago
I'm a webdev, I've done nothing but full-stack web development for the past 10 years, and I mostly agree with this guy. I hate Electron garbage, the slowness is infuriating. I hate SPAs and React, it's unnecessary abstraction overhead in 90% of the projects I've seen it used in. The only thing I don't agree with him about is PHP, because the benefits provided by abstracting routing and templating into a "proper" framework like Laravel are well worth the performance tradeoffs, which can be mitigated later by using cachers like Swoole and OPCache. > all these successful companies making billions of dollars and attracting top talent are just throwing money into a fire for fun Huge bureaucracies waste billions of dollars doing things which a single dedicated programmer could do, or small scrappy teams can do better. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is the whole reason by YCombinator exists: because startups can "disrupt" an industry.
- phailhaus 5y ago
  There's a nuanced argument to be made that companies reach for complex tooling too quickly, but that's not what the author said. He's convinced that none of this tooling should exist in the first place, there is no application for them, and everyone is stupid for not just using the basics.
- danaris 5y ago
  I'm more or less on the same page with you—and it's worth noting that the things we agree with him on are where the extra burden is placed on the client side, while the places we disagree are where the extra burden is placed on the server side. If you can make sure your server is fast enough that the client never notices a difference, it shouldn't matter whether you're using Apache's built-in routing or Symfony's PHP routing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ramoz 5y ago
The most insane, time consuming, abstractions I’ve written have been on the front end. Esp w/ React, since exhausting abstractions is basically a requirement for any large/complex app.
vladstudio 5y ago
Hm, the way I read the article was – there are much more "simple" web apps on the Web than "complex". But, the "simple" web apps are made using the same complex technologies that are only needed by a few complex web apps.
Joeri 5y ago
I have been in professional web development since 2004 and I mostly agree with the author that there are massive amounts of groupthink going on. "Modern" web development has standardized in tool stacks which are insanely complicated, far beyond anything that is warranted in most cases. We have forgotten how to make simple things in simple ways. At a minimum you need node, npm, webpack, babel, an spa framework, a frontend router, a css transpiler, a css framework, a test runner, a testing functions library, and a bunch of smaller things, and that's just what is "needed" to build a static website with a bit of interaction. We're not even talking about the dockerized insanity that happens as soon as you want to slide an API under that beast. I understand why every piece is there, I was there when they arrived on the scene, I understand what problem they solve. What I don't understand is why as a group web developers have decided this is the only way to solve the problem of web development. What we don't have are simpler web stacks. Why do we need npm or babel at all to make a simple web frontend? Modern browsers are good enough that with the right tooling we don't need build pipelines or package managers. Similar arguments can be made for the server-side parts. Anyway, here's my own two cents to a simpler web dev stack: a version of create react app that is entirely self-contained and has no build steps. https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero
- phailhaus 5y ago
  > Why do we need npm or babel at all to make a simple web frontend? See, that's a reasonable argument: many companies tend to reach for complex web tooling when simpler tools would do for the task at hand. But that's not what the author is arguing. He's convinced that none of this tooling should have ever been produced in the first place, it exists solely to stroke the egos of their creators, and anyone who uses it is stupid. That's just absurd. I've worked on complex client-based applications that would have been an order of magnitude more difficult to develop, maintain, and refactor without React.
  - Handytinge 5y ago
    Wouldn't you agree though that the vast majority of clients don't have that complex a need? These tools are taught to new developers as "the way things are", yet a significant portion of them statistically must be working in lower complexity environments that may not be serves by this level of tooling.

daveidol 5y ago

Agreed. I was cringing to read this - had a laugh at the Patreon plug at the end of this poorly-written rant about something he clearly has no solid understanding of.

the_only_law 5y ago

Yeah I went back to take a look at what else is in the blog, and his main schtick seems to be hating web development and frameworks, and not even in rational way.

goodpoint 5y ago

Not at all. Having worked on all sort of companies and applications, the author is absolutely right.

BeefWellington 5y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with your take but I think you should be making substantive counter-arguments to what the author wrote. Your post is essentially just attacking the author and of little substance in itself.

daveidol 5y ago
Others on here are doing that. A few counterpoints: 1. Electron is cross platform - something the author never even mentions, 2. Really, PHP is the prefect end state for web development of all scale? The lack of even acknowledging these things is what really discredits the author in my book.
Underphil 5y ago
Absolutely agreed. The original poster, if more knowledgeable, should set the record straight. Attacking the article without any valid counter is just point-scoring.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chipotle_coyote 5y ago
The original article isn't substantive. I mean, c'mon, the entirety of the argument against Electron apps is > They eat up all the memory you have and still ask for more. They constantly crash and has no value over a native desktop application what so ever - well, perhaps with the only exception that now a 2 year old baby can make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse. I'm kind of a curmudgeon about Electron apps, and I'm still reading that and going, "I can't think of a single time I've had an Electron app crash on me, what kind of genius two-year-olds are out there developing in React Native, and what kind of juvenile complaint is 'make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse' (as opposed to native desktop apps, which as we all know are matte black and only take keyboard input). Also, for Strunk & White's sake, 'whatsoever' is one word, and 'they' goes with the verb 'have', not 'has.'" And the whole article is like this. He goes on to complain about PHP templating systems because PHP itself is a templating language, and sure, yes, argument to be made there! Just…not this argument. Most PHP templating systems compile their templates to pure PHP, so if anything is making "the application load four times as slow" it is not that. Then he goes on to tell us "all web servers has a build in router" -- there are either two or three syntax errors in that seven-word sentence, depending on whether you count "build in" for "built-in" as one or two -- and rails against how web frameworks are eschewing web servers' built-in routers (by which we mean…URL requests?) and instead insisting on implementing the revolutionary new (checks notes) front controller pattern. Yes, you're right, web development would be so much easier without that, wouldn't it? Also, while we're here, let's talk about line numbers. Why aren't we still using line numbers? Named functions are for wussies. In my day, we used GOTO both ways uphill in the snow and we liked it! Wait, sorry. Where was I? Anyway, it's actually pretty hard to make "substantive counter-arguments". The article is badly argued and badly written. I would not normally be quite so much of a jerk about the numerous syntax errors, except that this ends with a suggestion that people, you know, pay for this writing. I don't expect perfection (God knows I make tpyos all the time), but the closing paragraph starts with a sentence that literally has no verb. If your entire thesis is "IT people need to do better," well: engineer, heal thyself.
- bunnythefifth 5y ago
  > I would not normally be quite so much of a jerk about the numerous syntax errors, except that this ends with a suggestion that people, you know, pay for this writing. I don't expect perfection (God knows I make tpyos all the time), but the closing paragraph starts with a sentence that literally has no verb. Are you really bashing the author for imperfect English? The about page clearly mentions that they are not a native speaker of the language, and even apologises for any imperfections in their writing as a result thereof [1]. I strongly agree with your parent comment that attacking the author for presenting their strong views in an area is unnecessary. Make arguments against what they wrote, not who they are. A little kindness also goes a long way. What the hell is this obsession with hammering everyone down with unwarranted negativity on this forum. [1] https://unixsheikh.com/about.html https://unixsheikh.com/about.html

bmeski 5y ago

I work on a massive CMS and he’s correct. There is an insane groupthink going on in webdev. Another team in my org has spent a year reinventing our client side js so that our templates are now mixed with the svelte runtime. All to render/update cards on the page that can update when an api pings the page. So 6 months later they’re still building the svelte integration and have only shipped 2 pages to users. This is a cms where you should be able to create any page via a combination of SSR components but no, now it’s a mix of SSR, SSR svelte within handlebars, and client side svelte. So the edit ui is now a fragmented mess of parts of the page that can and can’t render, ruining the default model of the cms all because they couldn’t bear to write vanilla js. They also added react the year before and now it just sits there decaying. Literally madness.

resonious 5y ago
I'm not sure if this one org making a mess is good evidence that there is groupthink occurring in the entire industry. There are places that are using these frameworks well, and it really does improve productivity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
beebmam 5y ago
I might find your argument more persuasive if you didn't use such extreme language.
- bmeski 5y ago
  If you think that is extreme language something is horribly wrong.
  - gmfawcett 5y ago
    Well, you did refer to "vanilla JS" without a trigger warning. :P
pjmlp 5y ago

superkuh 5y ago

I feel comfortable asserting you've never not used a complex web application, even for your personal non-commercial projects made for fun. The fact that his website (and other projects) is in HTML and doesn't need to be executed is a confirmation of the article ideas not some deficit. You can justify what you do with JS for money however you want but businesses do it that way because managers decided it's cheapest way for many people to collaborate, not because it's the best way for end users, security, or longevity.

phailhaus 5y ago
What is the purpose of his website? It is to serve static content. But obviously, his entire rant is against more complex, interactive, and stateful applications. It's strange to argue that because static sites exist, all sites should be static.
- superkuh 5y ago
  >his entire rant is against more complex, interactive, and stateful applications. ... where they aren't needed. Which is the vast majority of websites, even commercial ones. It's a rare website that actually is an application and not just a means to display text or images.

whack 5y ago

I seem to notice this particularly often with a subset of developers. People who have a very strong "who moved my cheese" mindset. They are used to doing things a certain way. An approach that is simple to understand, but takes a very long time to get anything done. Ie, writing vanilla HTML without any frameworks. Besides, they aren't the ones paying for a team of developers, so they don't really see a downside in spending 1 month to do something that could have been done in a week. And then all of a sudden, everything starts changing. Nobody wants to hire a vanilla JS/HTML developer anymore, they want react developers. And these react kiddies are able to put together a webapp that looks so much nicer, has more functionality, and they are able to do it in less time. They decide to try learning react, but find themselves with a tough problem they haven't dealt with in a while - being outside their comfort zone. They are so used to doing things a certain way. They know exactly how to do it. They can do it blindfolded. And all of a sudden, they find themselves having to change everything up. Overnight, they go from feeling like experts to feeling like novices. And they hate it. If they pushed through it, they would eventually gain mastery over it and learn to evaluate this new technology fairly on its merits. But they never do master this new technology. Feeling like a newbie is too psychologically painful. But they also recognize how much of a disadvantage they are at by not riding this wave that is taking over the industry. And so, rather than expressing indifference or acknowledging personal taste, they lash out with tremendous resentment and anger. > No, I will not be polite and call it something else because it is truly sheer stupidity. In the so-called modern day it's like everyone - except a few - has dropped their brain on the floor. Has everyone except the "unix greybeards" gone mad!? I get it. Change is scary. But it gets even scarier when you try to resist it instead of embracing it.

phist_mcgee 5y ago
You've hit the nail on the head. Greybeards now literally have grey beards. It must be hard to have pioneered software development, and watch it change under your feet at an escalating rate. I think the measures of a good engineer in the 80s/90s was more focused around 'hacker' culture. Speed, memory footprint, 'cleverness'. These days, a good engineer can scale, be flexible, and is a polyglot. I think the goal posts have shifted for the old schoolers, and it may be just one of those things. As they say, evolve or die.

blub 5y ago

I've been critical of so-called web apps for quite a bit more than a decade now. It's not the hate that was pathological, it was the obsession of taking a platform designed for displaying documents and transforming it into an application distribution platform. And after untold man hours and billions spent, the results are still inferior. That's where the "hate" is coming from. Seeing such an incredible waste while at the same time being lectured on the greatness of the web is intolerable for anyone that has seen what a quality piece of software looks and feels like.

_xnmw 5y ago

I'm a webdev, I've done nothing but full-stack web development for the past 10 years, and I mostly agree with this guy. I hate Electron garbage, the slowness is infuriating. I hate SPAs and React, it's unnecessary abstraction overhead in 90% of the projects I've seen it used in. The only thing I don't agree with him about is PHP, because the benefits provided by abstracting routing and templating into a "proper" framework like Laravel are well worth the performance tradeoffs, which can be mitigated later by using cachers like Swoole and OPCache. > all these successful companies making billions of dollars and attracting top talent are just throwing money into a fire for fun Huge bureaucracies waste billions of dollars doing things which a single dedicated programmer could do, or small scrappy teams can do better. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is the whole reason by YCombinator exists: because startups can "disrupt" an industry.

phailhaus 5y ago
There's a nuanced argument to be made that companies reach for complex tooling too quickly, but that's not what the author said. He's convinced that none of this tooling should exist in the first place, there is no application for them, and everyone is stupid for not just using the basics.
danaris 5y ago
I'm more or less on the same page with you—and it's worth noting that the things we agree with him on are where the extra burden is placed on the client side, while the places we disagree are where the extra burden is placed on the server side. If you can make sure your server is fast enough that the client never notices a difference, it shouldn't matter whether you're using Apache's built-in routing or Symfony's PHP routing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ramoz 5y ago

The most insane, time consuming, abstractions I’ve written have been on the front end. Esp w/ React, since exhausting abstractions is basically a requirement for any large/complex app.

vladstudio 5y ago

Hm, the way I read the article was – there are much more "simple" web apps on the Web than "complex". But, the "simple" web apps are made using the same complex technologies that are only needed by a few complex web apps.

Joeri 5y ago

I have been in professional web development since 2004 and I mostly agree with the author that there are massive amounts of groupthink going on. "Modern" web development has standardized in tool stacks which are insanely complicated, far beyond anything that is warranted in most cases. We have forgotten how to make simple things in simple ways. At a minimum you need node, npm, webpack, babel, an spa framework, a frontend router, a css transpiler, a css framework, a test runner, a testing functions library, and a bunch of smaller things, and that's just what is "needed" to build a static website with a bit of interaction. We're not even talking about the dockerized insanity that happens as soon as you want to slide an API under that beast. I understand why every piece is there, I was there when they arrived on the scene, I understand what problem they solve. What I don't understand is why as a group web developers have decided this is the only way to solve the problem of web development. What we don't have are simpler web stacks. Why do we need npm or babel at all to make a simple web frontend? Modern browsers are good enough that with the right tooling we don't need build pipelines or package managers. Similar arguments can be made for the server-side parts. Anyway, here's my own two cents to a simpler web dev stack: a version of create react app that is entirely self-contained and has no build steps. https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero

phailhaus 5y ago
> Why do we need npm or babel at all to make a simple web frontend? See, that's a reasonable argument: many companies tend to reach for complex web tooling when simpler tools would do for the task at hand. But that's not what the author is arguing. He's convinced that none of this tooling should have ever been produced in the first place, it exists solely to stroke the egos of their creators, and anyone who uses it is stupid. That's just absurd. I've worked on complex client-based applications that would have been an order of magnitude more difficult to develop, maintain, and refactor without React.
- Handytinge 5y ago
  Wouldn't you agree though that the vast majority of clients don't have that complex a need? These tools are taught to new developers as "the way things are", yet a significant portion of them statistically must be working in lower complexity environments that may not be serves by this level of tooling.