4 ms·
I don't think that's a convincing argument unless you are a tiny company that has to optimize for development time. You can also wonder why the frameworks you a
by Manfred 2y ago
I don't think that's a convincing argument unless you are a tiny company that has to optimize for development time. You can also wonder why the frameworks you are using make this hard, because it's a pretty common to want feedback close to where the action happens.
- ervine 2y agoI didn't say it was hard, it's just very nice to not have a bunch of extra error / success code in all of your components that make async requests. Trade offs, as usual.
- epolanski 2y agoIn my experience the overwhelming majority of teams out there are understaffed (especially when it comes to good and productive professionals) so your example is the rule, not the exception.
- dvdkon 2y agoI don't know anyone who isn't optimising for development time in some way. That said, most frameworks don't provide any worthwhile error handling infrastructure, and it's a problem. In a Jetpack Compose app I wrote, I created generic "error barrier" components, so that error messages display over relevant parts of the app, with just a few lines each time, timeouts included. I think this is the best approach, easy for developers and informative for users. Too many apps just ignore errors.
- Manfred 2y agoI meant optimizing for developer time over usability in the context of the story, that mostly shows products from Google. Google being the opposite of a small development team that could be forced to choose developer time over usability.