4 ms·

The whole js ecosystem is insanity, React isn't even the worst offender, it's a machine to generate complexity. My controversial opinion is still the same, the

The whole js ecosystem is insanity, React isn't even the worst offender, it's a machine to generate complexity. My controversial opinion is still the same, the less front-end you have in your stack, the easiest you'll be able to scale.

rglover 2y ago
Yargh, there still be some sanity left on these seas [1]. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick
whoknowsidont 2y ago
>The whole js ecosystem is insanity This is such a lazy, grandstandy, unoriginal take. >My controversial opinion is still the same It's not controversial it's just tired and ignorant.
- realusername 2y ago
  > It's not controversial it's just tired and ignorant Tired maybe but not ignorant since I helped to maintain two React SPAs for 6 years now so I'm pretty aware how bad it is.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    Well, still a subjective take. Heavy use of interactivity is hard. React makes it maintainable. It was hell before. I've been working with React (and RN) since it came out and I've had nothing but good experiences, especially compared to the previous decade before React. My motto is local-first, the more stuff the client does, the cheaper it is to scale and less bridging between the server you have to do. Move everything to the client, especially the database. Let the database do the syncing. Plus you get offline and undo/redo basically for free. Pagination? Fuggetaboutit.
    - MBCook 2y ago
      (Not a GP). Yeah. I use and like React. I don’t have an issue with it. It’s not tiny but it does a lot of work and makes my life easy. My general complaint is the JS ecosystem in general and its tooling.
    - apsurd 2y ago
      > Heavy use of interactivity is hard. React makes it maintainable. It was hell before. Agree, React is great for UI interactivity. > ...the more stuff the client does, the cheaper it is to scale and less bridging between the server you have to do. Disagree. The most costly form of scaling is people. UI + business-logic + data-modeling + data access (ACL) all held in async client concepts is a complexity nightmare in my experience. Even for my team-of-one side-projects. Server <-> client bridge is a feature for managing complexity over time. I may agree that added ceremony could make 95% tile app experiences default harder. But for anything that's not a toy, the #1 risk is always team/people/communication complexity.
    - realusername 2y ago
      The more stuff the client does, the higher the payload is going to be and the more complex the bundling and tooling will be. I'm in a company with around 100 devs now and I can certify you that front-end SPA do not scale at all unless you throw a insane amount of devs hours in the tooling, even then it barely does. That's not mentioning the insane npm churn that you have to maintain, the testing story which is pretty abysmal outside of a few top libraries, the typescript tooling which is eating so much ram that I'm changing my laptop. And I'm not sure why you mention the pagination as a plus where it's one of the big downsides of the front-end stack, there's a lot of hacks to make it behave okay in most situations.
      - ivan_gammel 2y ago
        > I'm in a company with around 100 devs now and I can certify you that front-end SPA do not scale at all What is the difference between SPAs and other monolithic architectures, e.g. on desktop, that makes it so? Why can’t you go with OSGI-style plugins, for example? Loose coupling, separate SDLC and deployments etc?
Capricorn2481 2y ago
> My controversial opinion is still the same This is the most popular opinion on HN. If anything, it's controversial to say React isn't a dumpster fire
nine_k 2y ago
In general, the less code you have, the better. Sadly, many products require sophisticated frontends, the FE is often a core part of the value proposition. React may be overkill in smaller cases, but it's a good tool in these cases of complex dynamic UIs.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Exactly. Things like LiveView (Phoenix) are changing the game somewhat, but if you need a sophisticated frontend, React is still a good way to go. PWAs in particular I think still have a lot of promise, even if they are being (intentionally) stifled by tech companies that have competing interests and want web apps to be as impotent as possible. For simple frontends that don't need to be complex UIs, I definitely don't turn to React (I love simple tried-and-true templating systems like ERB and/or EEX), but I definitely think React has it's place. Not everything should be SPA, but that doesn't mean nothing should.
hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
average HN commenter: React is artificial complexity, you should be able to make any website using jQuery and plain HTML, because that's what I did when I last did front-end development in 2007. also average HN commenter: If you use Python for your backend you're a moron, you need to use Rust so the API calls for your 0.5 requests/sec web app finish in 100ms instead of 125ms (note: 99ms is waiting for the database).
- realusername 2y ago
  I've been maintaining React SPAs for 6 years now so I absolutely know what I'm taking about when I say that it doesn't scale. I experienced all the pains of the js ecosystem.
- revscat 2y ago
  No one is saying that. People are starting to realize is that JavaScript frameworks are an unnecessary complexity to web application development. People have been seriously turned off by things like angular and react, and with good reason. With the advent of things like hotwire and htmx those JS frameworks are no longer strictly necessary, and many people welcome the news that their importance is fading away. I’m one of them.
bushbaba 2y ago
JS Ecosystem just has too much churn. Every 5 years there's some new better way of doing things.

rglover 2y ago

Yargh, there still be some sanity left on these seas [1]. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

whoknowsidont 2y ago

>The whole js ecosystem is insanity This is such a lazy, grandstandy, unoriginal take. >My controversial opinion is still the same It's not controversial it's just tired and ignorant.

realusername 2y ago
> It's not controversial it's just tired and ignorant Tired maybe but not ignorant since I helped to maintain two React SPAs for 6 years now so I'm pretty aware how bad it is.
- theultdev 2y ago
  Well, still a subjective take. Heavy use of interactivity is hard. React makes it maintainable. It was hell before. I've been working with React (and RN) since it came out and I've had nothing but good experiences, especially compared to the previous decade before React. My motto is local-first, the more stuff the client does, the cheaper it is to scale and less bridging between the server you have to do. Move everything to the client, especially the database. Let the database do the syncing. Plus you get offline and undo/redo basically for free. Pagination? Fuggetaboutit.
  - MBCook 2y ago
    (Not a GP). Yeah. I use and like React. I don’t have an issue with it. It’s not tiny but it does a lot of work and makes my life easy. My general complaint is the JS ecosystem in general and its tooling.
  - apsurd 2y ago
    > Heavy use of interactivity is hard. React makes it maintainable. It was hell before. Agree, React is great for UI interactivity. > ...the more stuff the client does, the cheaper it is to scale and less bridging between the server you have to do. Disagree. The most costly form of scaling is people. UI + business-logic + data-modeling + data access (ACL) all held in async client concepts is a complexity nightmare in my experience. Even for my team-of-one side-projects. Server <-> client bridge is a feature for managing complexity over time. I may agree that added ceremony could make 95% tile app experiences default harder. But for anything that's not a toy, the #1 risk is always team/people/communication complexity.
  - realusername 2y ago
    The more stuff the client does, the higher the payload is going to be and the more complex the bundling and tooling will be. I'm in a company with around 100 devs now and I can certify you that front-end SPA do not scale at all unless you throw a insane amount of devs hours in the tooling, even then it barely does. That's not mentioning the insane npm churn that you have to maintain, the testing story which is pretty abysmal outside of a few top libraries, the typescript tooling which is eating so much ram that I'm changing my laptop. And I'm not sure why you mention the pagination as a plus where it's one of the big downsides of the front-end stack, there's a lot of hacks to make it behave okay in most situations.
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      > I'm in a company with around 100 devs now and I can certify you that front-end SPA do not scale at all What is the difference between SPAs and other monolithic architectures, e.g. on desktop, that makes it so? Why can’t you go with OSGI-style plugins, for example? Loose coupling, separate SDLC and deployments etc?

Capricorn2481 2y ago

> My controversial opinion is still the same This is the most popular opinion on HN. If anything, it's controversial to say React isn't a dumpster fire

nine_k 2y ago

In general, the less code you have, the better. Sadly, many products require sophisticated frontends, the FE is often a core part of the value proposition. React may be overkill in smaller cases, but it's a good tool in these cases of complex dynamic UIs.

freedomben 2y ago
Exactly. Things like LiveView (Phoenix) are changing the game somewhat, but if you need a sophisticated frontend, React is still a good way to go. PWAs in particular I think still have a lot of promise, even if they are being (intentionally) stifled by tech companies that have competing interests and want web apps to be as impotent as possible. For simple frontends that don't need to be complex UIs, I definitely don't turn to React (I love simple tried-and-true templating systems like ERB and/or EEX), but I definitely think React has it's place. Not everything should be SPA, but that doesn't mean nothing should.

hnthrowaway6543 2y ago

average HN commenter: React is artificial complexity, you should be able to make any website using jQuery and plain HTML, because that's what I did when I last did front-end development in 2007. also average HN commenter: If you use Python for your backend you're a moron, you need to use Rust so the API calls for your 0.5 requests/sec web app finish in 100ms instead of 125ms (note: 99ms is waiting for the database).

realusername 2y ago
I've been maintaining React SPAs for 6 years now so I absolutely know what I'm taking about when I say that it doesn't scale. I experienced all the pains of the js ecosystem.
revscat 2y ago
No one is saying that. People are starting to realize is that JavaScript frameworks are an unnecessary complexity to web application development. People have been seriously turned off by things like angular and react, and with good reason. With the advent of things like hotwire and htmx those JS frameworks are no longer strictly necessary, and many people welcome the news that their importance is fading away. I’m one of them.

bushbaba 2y ago

JS Ecosystem just has too much churn. Every 5 years there's some new better way of doing things.