11 ms·

It's fine to use whatever tools you consider most appropriate for your situation and use case. The tools you mention have helped enable a ton of new forms of d

It's fine to use whatever tools you consider most appropriate for your situation and use case. The tools you mention have helped enable a ton of new forms of development and interactions on the web. Consider: I was recently baking a cake and didn't have to use a sous vide for anything, I don't understand why people keep hyping those up so much. That's similar to how your comment reads to me.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> Consider: I was recently baking a cake and didn't have to use a sous vide for anything, I don't understand why people keep hyping those up so much. That's similar to how your comment reads to me. This analogy seems to work pretty well. On the other side of the fence, I see people talking about how good their sous vide cakes are and how they’d never work at a bakery that didn’t exclusively use a sous vide. That’s not to say that the cooking method is never viable, just that it’s touted as the only thing necessary. Meanwhile online baking recipes list “make sure you own a sous vide” as the first step.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Where do you see people talking about how good their sous vide cakes are and how they’d never work at a bakery that didn’t exclusively use a sous vide? Who here "touted [it] as the only thing necessary"? In fact, what cakes have you seen that are cooked via sous vide? Are you sure you understood the analogy? The components of it were: 1. Person says they built a basic website without React, doesn't know why people use React (it's because the use case for React typically isn't "build a basic website given unlimited time and effort") 2. Person says they made a cake without sous vide, doesn't know why people use sous vide (it's because the use case for sous vide typically isn't "bake a cake")
  - saurik 3y ago
    The person you are responding to is embracing the analogy and using it to demonstrate how--if you also agree that the analogy works well--ridiculous it thereby would be how online tutorials for websites (not cakes: that's a the point) make it sound like the way to do anything and the very first technique you should learn in a tutorial is React (not sous vide: that's the point).
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      But they don't, which is why the analogy works well: just like websites for baking largely don't say "the only way to bake cakes is sous vide", basic website builder sites largely don't say "the only way to build basic websites is React". That's the point.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > basic website builder sites Assuming you interpreted this from "online baking recipes", I was intending to refer to tutorials that explain something like "how to disable a button" and step 1 is "npm install $POPULAR_LIBRARY".
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Tutorials online largely don't say that react is the only way to build a basic website, just like they largely don't say that the only way to bake a cake is sous vide. That's the point: tutorial sites largely don't do those things. As for the separate discussion of whether they largely suggest React as a first option for building a given web app, there's no problem with that: it's entirely possible that the best path is to try React first, then look at other, lower-level options only if necessary. The problem is only if they largely say that's the only option, which they don't, so what's the problem?
bob1029 3y ago
> It's fine to use whatever tools you consider most appropriate for your situation and use case. 1000% agreed. The part where this breaks down for me is the observation that many developers don't seem to have conducted the barest of due diligence regarding what tools and options are even available. I can accept that you went with ReactJS, but not if you are operating in a vacuum where access to MDN is restricted and you didn't even consider the merits of a "no-build" web ecosystem.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I think it's common for someone who prefers X to believe that another who hasn't chosen X has made an uninformed choice, or not done their due diligence (and of course the person believing this, considers themselves informed, etc). This belief is 1 step away from believing that everyone who didn't choose X is wrong. It's actually pretty likely they did sufficient due diligence, and picked the better option for them. Personally, I believe if they found something that works, more power to them. In all likelihood, the "no-build" option is likely more time and more work than using frameworks, for the sort of non-basic web apps someone might choose them for. Doing a comprehensive due diligence of all the possible ways to build something is, imo, the sort of analysis paralysis that stops hackers from just going out and building. Yes, you could become an expert in the full stack, such that you could build an app omitting any or all of them. Or you can build a thing. You're going to throw the first one away anyways.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

> Consider: I was recently baking a cake and didn't have to use a sous vide for anything, I don't understand why people keep hyping those up so much. That's similar to how your comment reads to me. This analogy seems to work pretty well. On the other side of the fence, I see people talking about how good their sous vide cakes are and how they’d never work at a bakery that didn’t exclusively use a sous vide. That’s not to say that the cooking method is never viable, just that it’s touted as the only thing necessary. Meanwhile online baking recipes list “make sure you own a sous vide” as the first step.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Where do you see people talking about how good their sous vide cakes are and how they’d never work at a bakery that didn’t exclusively use a sous vide? Who here "touted [it] as the only thing necessary"? In fact, what cakes have you seen that are cooked via sous vide? Are you sure you understood the analogy? The components of it were: 1. Person says they built a basic website without React, doesn't know why people use React (it's because the use case for React typically isn't "build a basic website given unlimited time and effort") 2. Person says they made a cake without sous vide, doesn't know why people use sous vide (it's because the use case for sous vide typically isn't "bake a cake")
- saurik 3y ago
  The person you are responding to is embracing the analogy and using it to demonstrate how--if you also agree that the analogy works well--ridiculous it thereby would be how online tutorials for websites (not cakes: that's a the point) make it sound like the way to do anything and the very first technique you should learn in a tutorial is React (not sous vide: that's the point).
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    But they don't, which is why the analogy works well: just like websites for baking largely don't say "the only way to bake cakes is sous vide", basic website builder sites largely don't say "the only way to build basic websites is React". That's the point.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > basic website builder sites Assuming you interpreted this from "online baking recipes", I was intending to refer to tutorials that explain something like "how to disable a button" and step 1 is "npm install $POPULAR_LIBRARY".
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Tutorials online largely don't say that react is the only way to build a basic website, just like they largely don't say that the only way to bake a cake is sous vide. That's the point: tutorial sites largely don't do those things. As for the separate discussion of whether they largely suggest React as a first option for building a given web app, there's no problem with that: it's entirely possible that the best path is to try React first, then look at other, lower-level options only if necessary. The problem is only if they largely say that's the only option, which they don't, so what's the problem?

bob1029 3y ago

> It's fine to use whatever tools you consider most appropriate for your situation and use case. 1000% agreed. The part where this breaks down for me is the observation that many developers don't seem to have conducted the barest of due diligence regarding what tools and options are even available. I can accept that you went with ReactJS, but not if you are operating in a vacuum where access to MDN is restricted and you didn't even consider the merits of a "no-build" web ecosystem.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I think it's common for someone who prefers X to believe that another who hasn't chosen X has made an uninformed choice, or not done their due diligence (and of course the person believing this, considers themselves informed, etc). This belief is 1 step away from believing that everyone who didn't choose X is wrong. It's actually pretty likely they did sufficient due diligence, and picked the better option for them. Personally, I believe if they found something that works, more power to them. In all likelihood, the "no-build" option is likely more time and more work than using frameworks, for the sort of non-basic web apps someone might choose them for. Doing a comprehensive due diligence of all the possible ways to build something is, imo, the sort of analysis paralysis that stops hackers from just going out and building. Yes, you could become an expert in the full stack, such that you could build an app omitting any or all of them. Or you can build a thing. You're going to throw the first one away anyways.