4 ms·
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
by 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 agoCompilers 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 agoAgreed, 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 agoAll 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.
- jakubmazanec 2y agoThey cannot be achieved without JavaScript and still be fast (good luck having product filtering with full-page reloads, your users will flee) - that was the whole point. And I didn't say you have to use React specifically. But without framework you in the end just create a custom one (as was said multiple times by other commenters).
- troad 2y agoAs I said, minimal to no JS. Something like HTMX or Turbo* is more than sufficient to solve this fictitious full page reload aversion that users supposedly have (they don't, they have much more of an aversion to endless spinners and websites that break their browser's scrollbars and back buttons). Ask the average person whether websites have gotten better or worse since 2014. That's their opinion of SPAs. > But without framework you in the end just create a custom one Only if you've only ever written React-style webpages, and can't imagine any other way a website may work. Which, needless to say, would reflect a very limited experience of the web. * Or just a plain XMLHttpRequest call? Dynamic loading is exceedingly simple, and certainly doesn't require a convoluted web framework.