4 ms·

I've been called a conspiracy theorist before, but I believe this is why many frontend developers make their tooling and stack so complicated - to carve out the

I've been called a conspiracy theorist before, but I believe this is why many frontend developers make their tooling and stack so complicated - to carve out their own niche to remain relevant. Just compare how simple and easy Java is to get up and running.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Ehhh... Java didn't start out that way. It felt like confusing hell and I wasn't sure what I was doing for a good reason and what I did because that's just what you did. EJB, Glassfish, Apache, WAL, something something Enterprise. Java the language is quite nice, the tooling can be quite insane. Yeah, don't forget the custom convoluted setup at some companies which only work with Eclipse, which suddenly slows down for no reason until you restart it. Then, you throw in some plugins and 50% of your screen real estate is gone. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Java and the good tooling, but I'm more exposed to C# these days and Java feels like 90% the same, so I'm never compelled to go back. Or you are maybe sarcastic, impossible to tell in text... Side-edit: from the very beginning, Java was simple, when it was released. But in 2010 it felt super confusing to me.
the-smug-one 4y ago
>Just compare how simple and easy Java is to get up and running. Is it? I come from a very different background and I'm trying to get a small Java back-end up and running (Quarkus) and wow, it's so painful! There's a huge amount of buy in, to me, in the framework. I found Node, Go and Python to be easier in simply delivering a HTTP(S) server. I've gotta do it in Java for reasons.
- isthiseasymode 4y ago
  People generally use spring when it comes to java. Spring is just a few annotations away from creating an endpoint. https://start.spring.io/ https://start.spring.io/ Of course with spring, there’s a lot of stuff that isn’t java that you have to know.
  - hnfong 4y ago
    You're probably referring to Spring boot, which I haven't used but I presume is fine. However, the Spring framework in the 2000s was a horrible mess of "aspect oriented programming" and obscure XML configuration files. Till this day I had no idea what it was trying to achieve with that architecture (except maybe trying to avoid writing code by writing lots of XML configuration files instead) I think they learned their lesson.
- Mike_12345 4y ago
  Quarkus is not a small framework. Here's a small framework for comparison: https://javalin.io https://javalin.io
- xeromal 4y ago
  100%. I think rolling an API in express is probably one of the easiest ways to make a backend. const app = express() app.get("/user", (id) => { return db.user(id); }) app.run() or something like that.
tracerbulletx 4y ago
The most popular "complex" front end stack these days is something like Next.js and it's a single button push to have a dev server that instantly responds and updates to saving a change in the code, and it's another single button to deploy. Just because you don't have familiarity with something doesn't make it complicated. It would be more or at least equally as complicated to write the majority of web applications using nothing but the browser provided abstractions directly.
ilyt 4y ago
I never had thought that in my life I'd have people longing for how easy java is lmao. That coming from experience of managing various shit turborchargers like tomcat or jboss that just added tons of unnecesary complexity and zero benefits to 90% of apps that used them
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I still have terrible nightmares about the next build of our TomCat-utilizing JSR-168-portlet-based research tracking system failing to stand up. LifeRay, not even once.
  - semireg 4y ago
    Bless all your hearts. This sounds like you were doing the lords work. Ha!
- koolba 4y ago
  There’s a special spot in hell reserved for the most vile systems managers. Their punishment is to repeatedly deploy WAR files to WebSphere. And each time it doesn’t work, and of course it never works, they have load up NetBeans to hand edit some XML config file and try again.

actionfromafar 4y ago

Ehhh... Java didn't start out that way. It felt like confusing hell and I wasn't sure what I was doing for a good reason and what I did because that's just what you did. EJB, Glassfish, Apache, WAL, something something Enterprise. Java the language is quite nice, the tooling can be quite insane. Yeah, don't forget the custom convoluted setup at some companies which only work with Eclipse, which suddenly slows down for no reason until you restart it. Then, you throw in some plugins and 50% of your screen real estate is gone. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Java and the good tooling, but I'm more exposed to C# these days and Java feels like 90% the same, so I'm never compelled to go back. Or you are maybe sarcastic, impossible to tell in text... Side-edit: from the very beginning, Java was simple, when it was released. But in 2010 it felt super confusing to me.

the-smug-one 4y ago

>Just compare how simple and easy Java is to get up and running. Is it? I come from a very different background and I'm trying to get a small Java back-end up and running (Quarkus) and wow, it's so painful! There's a huge amount of buy in, to me, in the framework. I found Node, Go and Python to be easier in simply delivering a HTTP(S) server. I've gotta do it in Java for reasons.

isthiseasymode 4y ago
People generally use spring when it comes to java. Spring is just a few annotations away from creating an endpoint. https://start.spring.io/ https://start.spring.io/ Of course with spring, there’s a lot of stuff that isn’t java that you have to know.
- hnfong 4y ago
  You're probably referring to Spring boot, which I haven't used but I presume is fine. However, the Spring framework in the 2000s was a horrible mess of "aspect oriented programming" and obscure XML configuration files. Till this day I had no idea what it was trying to achieve with that architecture (except maybe trying to avoid writing code by writing lots of XML configuration files instead) I think they learned their lesson.
Mike_12345 4y ago
Quarkus is not a small framework. Here's a small framework for comparison: https://javalin.io https://javalin.io
xeromal 4y ago
100%. I think rolling an API in express is probably one of the easiest ways to make a backend. const app = express() app.get("/user", (id) => { return db.user(id); }) app.run() or something like that.

tracerbulletx 4y ago

The most popular "complex" front end stack these days is something like Next.js and it's a single button push to have a dev server that instantly responds and updates to saving a change in the code, and it's another single button to deploy. Just because you don't have familiarity with something doesn't make it complicated. It would be more or at least equally as complicated to write the majority of web applications using nothing but the browser provided abstractions directly.

ilyt 4y ago

I never had thought that in my life I'd have people longing for how easy java is lmao. That coming from experience of managing various shit turborchargers like tomcat or jboss that just added tons of unnecesary complexity and zero benefits to 90% of apps that used them

atdrummond 4y ago
I still have terrible nightmares about the next build of our TomCat-utilizing JSR-168-portlet-based research tracking system failing to stand up. LifeRay, not even once.
- semireg 4y ago
  Bless all your hearts. This sounds like you were doing the lords work. Ha!
koolba 4y ago
There’s a special spot in hell reserved for the most vile systems managers. Their punishment is to repeatedly deploy WAR files to WebSphere. And each time it doesn’t work, and of course it never works, they have load up NetBeans to hand edit some XML config file and try again.