6 ms·

Yep. A simple shopping site or tweet site doesn’t need to be an “app”. These devs are up their own asses thinking they need an app for their stupid (and simple)

Yep. A simple shopping site or tweet site doesn’t need to be an “app”. These devs are up their own asses thinking they need an app for their stupid (and simple) idea because it’s easy for them and they are “engineers” and we’re all stuck with delayed reactions, missed/double clicks, and broken middle clicks (X, Target) on every click now. Some app.

bardak 2y ago
I think I despise throbers and spinners more than slow page loads at this point.
- troad 2y ago
  At least the throbbers and spinners are real. The true evil is "optimistic rendering". "Our framework is so slow that we can't possibly manipulate data in a reasonable time frame, so we'll just lie to the user and say we did! What could possibly go wrong?" Also in the running: giving absolutely no indication whatsoever to the user that anything succeeded or failed or is in progress at all (aka the Apple approach).
gejose 2y ago
This reads like the perspective of someone who really doesn't understand nor appreciate the real world complexity and technical trade offs involved in building something like twitter or a shopping site
- troad 2y ago
  > This reads like the perspective of someone who really doesn't understand nor appreciate the real world complexity and technical trade offs involved in building something like twitter or a shopping site You're describing websites simple enough that they're often used in beginner tutorials for web development. Online shopping and text-based social networking absolutely and emphatically do not require a spaghetti soup of JavaScript frameworks. These were relatively simple websites to build for decades before web frameworks ever came along.
  - TheCoelacanth 2y ago
    Compilers are a common project for university CS students. That doesn't mean GCC is overly complicated. There's a huge difference between making a simple prototype of a concept and making an actual production app that fulfills a myriad of requirements that help you run a successful business.
    - troad 2y ago
      Agreed, but not even a battle-hardened production compiler requires a particle accelerator or an optical fibre cable to the Webb space telescope. Similarly, a shopping site or text-based social media does not require a soup of web frameworks. It just doesn't - it's not a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. Complexity is expense, and this doesn't remove complexity, it introduces it, reams of it, and totally needlessly. No one has ever sat in front of a shopping site and thought - 'you know what this needs? A dozen extra mb of JavaScript that introduce no actual new customer-facing features, but that put a noticeable delay in every interaction, break the user's scrollbars and screen readers, and dramatically complicate maintenance.'
      - jakubmazanec 2y ago
        > soup of web frameworks What a beautiful Straw man. What are these social media sites with more than one framework? > ever sat in front of a shopping site and thought But do you know what actually think? That they want to have products filtering, they want to have more products loaded with a simple button click, they want to add reviews and comments, they want to see product photos (or maybe even 3D models) - all fast without unnecessary page reloads. It's your problem you can't build it without breaking user experience.
        troad 2y ago
        All of the things you list can be achieved with minimal or no JavaScript, and many are completely trivial (filtering? adding reviews and comments?). In general, if a prospective employee told me they needed React to implement website comments, I would not walk away with a very high opinion of that dev's abilities.
para_parolu 2y ago
My bank website uses very old js and no react. Yet middle click doesn’t work (as well as back button). These problems have nothing to do with framework/library.
- xcrunner529 2y ago
  It’s what’s encouraged. The react way for links that’s easiest and used in tutorials is one that breaks middle click.

bardak 2y ago

I think I despise throbers and spinners more than slow page loads at this point.

troad 2y ago
At least the throbbers and spinners are real. The true evil is "optimistic rendering". "Our framework is so slow that we can't possibly manipulate data in a reasonable time frame, so we'll just lie to the user and say we did! What could possibly go wrong?" Also in the running: giving absolutely no indication whatsoever to the user that anything succeeded or failed or is in progress at all (aka the Apple approach).

gejose 2y ago

This reads like the perspective of someone who really doesn't understand nor appreciate the real world complexity and technical trade offs involved in building something like twitter or a shopping site

troad 2y ago
> This reads like the perspective of someone who really doesn't understand nor appreciate the real world complexity and technical trade offs involved in building something like twitter or a shopping site You're describing websites simple enough that they're often used in beginner tutorials for web development. Online shopping and text-based social networking absolutely and emphatically do not require a spaghetti soup of JavaScript frameworks. These were relatively simple websites to build for decades before web frameworks ever came along.
- TheCoelacanth 2y ago
  Compilers are a common project for university CS students. That doesn't mean GCC is overly complicated. There's a huge difference between making a simple prototype of a concept and making an actual production app that fulfills a myriad of requirements that help you run a successful business.
  - troad 2y ago
    Agreed, but not even a battle-hardened production compiler requires a particle accelerator or an optical fibre cable to the Webb space telescope. Similarly, a shopping site or text-based social media does not require a soup of web frameworks. It just doesn't - it's not a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. Complexity is expense, and this doesn't remove complexity, it introduces it, reams of it, and totally needlessly. No one has ever sat in front of a shopping site and thought - 'you know what this needs? A dozen extra mb of JavaScript that introduce no actual new customer-facing features, but that put a noticeable delay in every interaction, break the user's scrollbars and screen readers, and dramatically complicate maintenance.'
    - jakubmazanec 2y ago
      > soup of web frameworks What a beautiful Straw man. What are these social media sites with more than one framework? > ever sat in front of a shopping site and thought But do you know what actually think? That they want to have products filtering, they want to have more products loaded with a simple button click, they want to add reviews and comments, they want to see product photos (or maybe even 3D models) - all fast without unnecessary page reloads. It's your problem you can't build it without breaking user experience.
      - troad 2y ago
        All of the things you list can be achieved with minimal or no JavaScript, and many are completely trivial (filtering? adding reviews and comments?). In general, if a prospective employee told me they needed React to implement website comments, I would not walk away with a very high opinion of that dev's abilities.

para_parolu 2y ago

My bank website uses very old js and no react. Yet middle click doesn’t work (as well as back button). These problems have nothing to do with framework/library.

xcrunner529 2y ago
It’s what’s encouraged. The react way for links that’s easiest and used in tutorials is one that breaks middle click.