5 ms·

I hear you...another level is that building javascript files has gotten so obfuscated with build processes such as webpack, babel, and typescript, that it adds

I hear you...another level is that building javascript files has gotten so obfuscated with build processes such as webpack, babel, and typescript, that it adds a layer of confusion just to output code that you know is valid code, but all these darn build processes may give you problems under the hood....then you gotta research all that nonsense and find that some packages weren't updated. THAT is the fatigue part to me. I don't really mind learning new frameworks, cuz let's be honest, most of them are all doing CRUD operations and repainting the browser with new html. However, under the hood stuff that potentially arises with misaligned, packages, or configs...ughhhhh

wruza 4y ago
Webpack specialist became a position recently. I miss these good times when you could simply %.o: %.c $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -o $@ $< and feel great for the rest of the day.
- tkpremier 4y ago
  Hahah, I'm not surprised. Them config files have created a niche FE DevOps Specialist role. To be fair, while the hours of painful medium articles and gists research, the knowledge gained has given me a better understanding of Webpack, and I do feel more confident when taking on various tutorials which all have different approaches to fit the config to my needs. But still, as a newcomer to JS or someone in OP's position, the build game is certainly a lot more complicated than your command! ....btw, I have no idea what your command does/says :D. Linux (Ubuntu) CLI syntax has been something I've tried to improve on over the years.
  - wruza 4y ago
    Yep, the blogspam only adds to the complexity because you can not be certain of an author's level of knowledge until you become an old sailor yourself. This command is a Makefile rule for building .o out of .c source files. It is var-heavy, but results in something like: gcc -c -std=c99 -Wall -I/path/to/headers -o file.o file.c I have no idea what my usual webpack config results into and how to debug that mess.
- joshmanders 4y ago
  I find this interesting because the string you just provided you feel is something so ubiquitous that everyone knows what you're talking about. It may as well be a foreign language to me, but webpack? Webpack is easy... To me.
  - balls187 4y ago
    I think the parent commenter’s script was posted with tongue in cheek.
    - relaxing 4y ago
      I don’t think so — there was never a time when C/C++ build specialist was a position. And yes, it used to be easier. We didn’t have the speed and convenience of deploying code to the web, but we delivered software that worked, and with nicely-written end user documentation.
      - water8 4y ago
        Have you ever tried compiling 20 million lines of code? Probably gonna want a build specialist to distribute that over as much cpu power your org has available. Unless thats something you want to do in addition to everything else
      - detaro 4y ago
        Roles that specifically deal with build tooling/improvements are totally a thing in various places.
- Too 4y ago
  That's looking at history through rosy glasses. Now edit the contents of a transitively included header file, run make and feel unhappy for the rest of the day while debugging why your executable did not get rebuilt. Every environment of its time goes through a phase of build-specialist position, required for big projects. Webpack must be one of the worst so far though, it's in this uncanny valley of being unopinionated yet still requiring special operators and plugins for everything. It feels like a black box where you just can't be creative and compose things yourself, you always have to copy a template and find the magic justMakeItWork-option. No surprise really, since it's in a rather difficult position, integrating 3 major legacy technologies (css/html/js) that were not meant for it to begin with, add pre-processors like sass, typescript and static asset generation to the mix and you have more than 6 stacks to spaghetti together.

wruza 4y ago

Webpack specialist became a position recently. I miss these good times when you could simply %.o: %.c $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -o $@ $< and feel great for the rest of the day.

tkpremier 4y ago
Hahah, I'm not surprised. Them config files have created a niche FE DevOps Specialist role. To be fair, while the hours of painful medium articles and gists research, the knowledge gained has given me a better understanding of Webpack, and I do feel more confident when taking on various tutorials which all have different approaches to fit the config to my needs. But still, as a newcomer to JS or someone in OP's position, the build game is certainly a lot more complicated than your command! ....btw, I have no idea what your command does/says :D. Linux (Ubuntu) CLI syntax has been something I've tried to improve on over the years.
- wruza 4y ago
  Yep, the blogspam only adds to the complexity because you can not be certain of an author's level of knowledge until you become an old sailor yourself. This command is a Makefile rule for building .o out of .c source files. It is var-heavy, but results in something like: gcc -c -std=c99 -Wall -I/path/to/headers -o file.o file.c I have no idea what my usual webpack config results into and how to debug that mess.
joshmanders 4y ago
I find this interesting because the string you just provided you feel is something so ubiquitous that everyone knows what you're talking about. It may as well be a foreign language to me, but webpack? Webpack is easy... To me.
- balls187 4y ago
  I think the parent commenter’s script was posted with tongue in cheek.
  - relaxing 4y ago
    I don’t think so — there was never a time when C/C++ build specialist was a position. And yes, it used to be easier. We didn’t have the speed and convenience of deploying code to the web, but we delivered software that worked, and with nicely-written end user documentation.
    - water8 4y ago
      Have you ever tried compiling 20 million lines of code? Probably gonna want a build specialist to distribute that over as much cpu power your org has available. Unless thats something you want to do in addition to everything else
    - detaro 4y ago
      Roles that specifically deal with build tooling/improvements are totally a thing in various places.
Too 4y ago
That's looking at history through rosy glasses. Now edit the contents of a transitively included header file, run make and feel unhappy for the rest of the day while debugging why your executable did not get rebuilt. Every environment of its time goes through a phase of build-specialist position, required for big projects. Webpack must be one of the worst so far though, it's in this uncanny valley of being unopinionated yet still requiring special operators and plugins for everything. It feels like a black box where you just can't be creative and compose things yourself, you always have to copy a template and find the magic justMakeItWork-option. No surprise really, since it's in a rather difficult position, integrating 3 major legacy technologies (css/html/js) that were not meant for it to begin with, add pre-processors like sass, typescript and static asset generation to the mix and you have more than 6 stacks to spaghetti together.