4 ms·
This argument reminds me of people who confuse market success with product quality. I.e. some people believe that if the product sells well, then it must be a
by crabbone 4y ago
This argument reminds me of people who confuse market success with product quality. I.e. some people believe that if the product sells well, then it must be a good product.
You don't need to try hard to convince yourself that there's no causal link between the two (eg. fast food sells well, but isn't good food, high-end goods usually don't sell well because buyers aren't willing to pay extra for marginal improvements).
And so does your argument. The post OP was the reaction to was talking about quality and how misguided the whole field is in terms of using existing, concrete pieces of software s.a. React. And that is, unfortunately, the reality. Web is awful, especially because of how it's been developed, especially due to things like React. But it also sells well. But this wasn't the point.
> Pay people to fix the tech/replace the janky or slow stuff/automate manual things.
Sometimes? When circumstances allow that? This is not a given. And with the way Web is, and the way it's going, it's only getting worse. HTML is a bloated standard. JavaScript is an idiotic language. The GUI toolkit that browser offer is a combo of bloat and idiocy. The whole idea of making "single page applications" is idiotic because Web was never meant for that. It was meant to be an interface to what today we'd call a distributed document database. But is this going to change because individual programmers or individual companies recognize the problem? Are they going to fix / automate it? -- well, there's no way a single company, not even a mega international corporation at this point, which could do that.
The argument the OP was the counter-argument to was saying that Web needs a different foundation and that no modern frameworks are any good. It didn't go as far (as I did) in claiming that the whole stack is garbage. Still, you are missing the point when you are making an abstract argument about using frameworks. The point was: "we have garbage frameworks in Web, and things are getting worse, let's take action to do things differently".
- Ambolia 4y agoExactly, the point of frameworks like React is to patch over issues with html, css, javascript and the DOM. Dropping React (the framework) will just make you deal with those issues in particular ways that only you understand, but it won't make them disappear.
- archerx 4y agoThat’s strange, I thought the point of React was to make websites slow and laggy so you can save on server costs by just serving json after the initial payload.
- Ambolia 4y agoSome of us still remember the golden years of doing the same but with jQuery snippets spread through hundreds of files with zero logical connection between them except in the developer's mind.
- dmitriid 4y agoIt's not even ancient history. React is only 10 years old.
- archerx 4y agoI have no issues with frameworks and libs but the fact I know I’m on site built with react because everything gets laggy and my laptops fans start spinning is not a great selling point.
- Ambolia 4y agoYes, the web is a terrible platform for applications. Anything on the web that goes beyond the equivalent of linked PDFs will be wonky. There's nothing on the web even approaching 1990s desktop applications. Specially if you care about latency, precision, and text inputs not randomly eating what you type. Even with the wonkiness, the web is usually worth using because of the access you get to big amounts of data and backend servers providing nice services.
- robust-cactus 4y agoI've literally never experienced this with react. This sounds like an infinite loop of some sort.
- crabbone 4y ago