3 ms·

> At least in JavaScript land all production ready frameworks only solve two problems: architecture in a box and put text on screen. I don't think you have a v

by rewmie 3y ago

> At least in JavaScript land all production ready frameworks only solve two problems: architecture in a box and put text on screen. I don't think you have a very good grasp on the issue. All production-ready application frameworks are designed to provide standardized application structures out-of-the-box that hide the implementation details that don't change and make it trivial to customize the parts that change more often. That's what they are used for: to ensure developers do not have to reinvent the wheel poorly, and to provide very flexible ways to change the things that are expected to change the most often. Front-end frameworks are used to help develop user interfaces. Describing user interfaces as "put text on screen" already shows you have a very poor grasp on the subject and are oblivious to fundamental requirements. Unwittingly, you're demonstrating one of the key aspects where frameworks create value: gather requirements and implement key features that meet them, so that people like you and me who are oblivious to them don't need to rearchitect their ad-hoc frameworks to support them as an afterthought. It should be noted that those who try to make the same accusations you've made regarding complexity aren't really complaining about complexity. Instead, they are just manifesting that they are oblivious to key requirements and as they are oblivious to them then they believe they can just leave huge gaps in basic features without any consequence.

austin-cheney 3y ago
Strange. You are almost verbatim repeating what I wrote, expanding upon it, and then elaborating upon your expansion to justify the same conclusion that I wrote in about 4 words. To me this sounds like virtue signaling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling These frameworks provide value to the employer, not the developers, because it eases candidate selection and turns otherwise unqualified developers into less capable commodities. In that regard the value is entirely regressive because it requires more of the less capable people to perform equivalent work that does not achieve disproportionate scale, which is the economic goal of automation. If the given developers only return value directly proportional to their manual efforts they are merely overpaid configuration experts on top of data entry.

by rewmie 3y ago

austin-cheney 3y ago

Strange. You are almost verbatim repeating what I wrote, expanding upon it, and then elaborating upon your expansion to justify the same conclusion that I wrote in about 4 words. To me this sounds like virtue signaling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling These frameworks provide value to the employer, not the developers, because it eases candidate selection and turns otherwise unqualified developers into less capable commodities. In that regard the value is entirely regressive because it requires more of the less capable people to perform equivalent work that does not achieve disproportionate scale, which is the economic goal of automation. If the given developers only return value directly proportional to their manual efforts they are merely overpaid configuration experts on top of data entry.