4 ms·

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's

Modern web development has become a wasteland of over-engineered solutions, and the real issue isn't client-side vs. server-side rendering; it's the industry's obsession with frameworks. Frameworks are not just tools; they're ideologies that developers subscribe to, often blindly. This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. Ironically, this 'framework-first' mentality stifles the very innovation it claims to promote. The future of web development should focus on lean, framework-agnostic solutions, even if it means revisiting 'outdated' technologies. The most secure and maintainable code isn't necessarily wrapped in the latest framework; it's code that is simple, well-documented, and, above all, understandable without needing a 'decoder ring' of npm packages.

ecshafer 3y ago
I think the reality of web development is that outside a few minority of “apps”: figma, google maps, etc. is that basic html, js and css is more than enough. Maybe some jquery, or something like rails or php to update values server side before it’s sent out. Most websites are just text, with some pictures and some forms. Most frameworks are total overkill.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thrashh 3y ago
Even every significant website built 15 years ago not in JavaScript involved a framework. In Java, you got Spring. In Python, you got Django. In Ruby, you got RoR. In PHP, you got Symfony. etc. Blaming frameworks seems misguided.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Yes, they have been relatively stable for the last 20 years, and focus on delivering what the browser does best, HTML and CSS.
pjmlp 3y ago
Full on the spot. Using traditional Java and .NET stacks for the last 20 years. Naturally in the context of being yet another cog on the enterprise machine, doesn't always go that way, however when given the option, Java and .NET Web stacks as always.
intelVISA 3y ago
It's an easy problem space, so in order to 'flex' you're forced to constantly over-engineer and complexify imo.
halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
While this is your opinion, a majority of the frontend development experience has borne these solutions out of real problems, not in spite of them. Every take like this reeks of never having built large and interactive frontend projects that involve more than 1 developer. Sure you can get by on htmx/html/css/tailwind/whatever simplistic thing you can conjure up but those things don't SCALE, which is what these frameworks are built to do.
- winwang 3y ago
  I find it funny, even creative, that you managed to slip in something against tailwind in your comment.
  - halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
    I've got plenty of stories about tailwind not scaling if you have the time ;)
- bofadeez 3y ago
  The argument that 'simplistic' technologies don't scale is dismissive of the robust, enterprise-level applications that have been successfully built without heavy frontend frameworks. It's not the tool that scales; it's the architecture and the development practices.
  - halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
    > enterprise-level applications that have been successfully built Who? When? Where? I refuse to believe this assertion. Are we talking past or present? The whole reason why these frontend focused frameworks exist is because either the existing solutions (pure html, even with preprocessors like handlebars, pure vanilla JS, lower level libs like jQuery) did not scale to meet demand or existing frameworks (JSP, PHP, etc) became a mess at scale. Everyone loves to throw out these imaginary success stories of corps rolling just with html/css but I've never seen it actually proven true with evidence.
rhaway84773 3y ago
> This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. If that was the case we wouldn’t have the other problem we have on the front end. A million and 1 different web frameworks.
menacingly 3y ago
Strongly agree. A great example of this hyperengineering is React Router. What should be boring utility code wants to be the opinionated lead singer of your app and introduce breaking changes every few years while the rest of the web has been treating routing like a solved problem for decades.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ecshafer 3y ago

I think the reality of web development is that outside a few minority of “apps”: figma, google maps, etc. is that basic html, js and css is more than enough. Maybe some jquery, or something like rails or php to update values server side before it’s sent out. Most websites are just text, with some pictures and some forms. Most frameworks are total overkill.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thrashh 3y ago

Even every significant website built 15 years ago not in JavaScript involved a framework. In Java, you got Spring. In Python, you got Django. In Ruby, you got RoR. In PHP, you got Symfony. etc. Blaming frameworks seems misguided.

pjmlp 3y ago
Yes, they have been relatively stable for the last 20 years, and focus on delivering what the browser does best, HTML and CSS.

pjmlp 3y ago

Full on the spot. Using traditional Java and .NET stacks for the last 20 years. Naturally in the context of being yet another cog on the enterprise machine, doesn't always go that way, however when given the option, Java and .NET Web stacks as always.

intelVISA 3y ago

It's an easy problem space, so in order to 'flex' you're forced to constantly over-engineer and complexify imo.

halfmatthalfcat 3y ago

While this is your opinion, a majority of the frontend development experience has borne these solutions out of real problems, not in spite of them. Every take like this reeks of never having built large and interactive frontend projects that involve more than 1 developer. Sure you can get by on htmx/html/css/tailwind/whatever simplistic thing you can conjure up but those things don't SCALE, which is what these frameworks are built to do.

winwang 3y ago
I find it funny, even creative, that you managed to slip in something against tailwind in your comment.
- halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
  I've got plenty of stories about tailwind not scaling if you have the time ;)
bofadeez 3y ago
The argument that 'simplistic' technologies don't scale is dismissive of the robust, enterprise-level applications that have been successfully built without heavy frontend frameworks. It's not the tool that scales; it's the architecture and the development practices.
- halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
  > enterprise-level applications that have been successfully built Who? When? Where? I refuse to believe this assertion. Are we talking past or present? The whole reason why these frontend focused frameworks exist is because either the existing solutions (pure html, even with preprocessors like handlebars, pure vanilla JS, lower level libs like jQuery) did not scale to meet demand or existing frameworks (JSP, PHP, etc) became a mess at scale. Everyone loves to throw out these imaginary success stories of corps rolling just with html/css but I've never seen it actually proven true with evidence.

rhaway84773 3y ago

> This has led to a monoculture where questioning popular frameworks like React is heretical. If that was the case we wouldn’t have the other problem we have on the front end. A million and 1 different web frameworks.

menacingly 3y ago

Strongly agree. A great example of this hyperengineering is React Router. What should be boring utility code wants to be the opinionated lead singer of your app and introduce breaking changes every few years while the rest of the web has been treating routing like a solved problem for decades.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]