4 ms·

I think this is not the point of the argument. Power driver solves a problem, but not everyone has that problem. Some jobs just need a drill. The article argue

I think this is not the point of the argument. Power driver solves a problem, but not everyone has that problem. Some jobs just need a drill. The article argues that while React solves a problem, not everyone actually has a problem that requires the complexity of React (i.e. "Build pyramids if you must").

taeric 1y ago
Right, my point was more that thinking you can guess the simplicity of a solution based on the complexity of the tools used to build it is a bit misleading. If only because most simple tools are far more complicated than that allows. Similarly, I would argue that using complex tools to build something generally results in less complicated outcomes. Our computers are basically evidence of that.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  Yes, the modern world is a confusing thing. Difficulty of use and reliability don't seem to have any relation to complexity on mass-distributed products. Costs depend almost exclusively on scale, and not on inherent properties.
motorest 1y ago
> The article argues that while React solves a problem, not everyone actually has a problem that requires the complexity of React (i.e. "Build pyramids if you must"). I think this argument isn't valid. The problem that React solves is creating reactive user interfaces. React is trivial to use in it's happy path. The tool's complexity is a red herring because using the tool is trivial and effortless. To me, this argument is based on specious reasoning. Take for example vending machines. They are trivial to use: pick a product, pay, see it drop and pick up your item. It's dead simple. Does it make any sense to whine that buying items from an automated system is a problem not everyone has, and that the vending machine is far more complex than a seller behind a counter? No. What makes sense is the complexity from the user's perspective, and what effort it requires them to achieve the goals they set forth to achieve. And React makes it trivially easy to put together highly performant reactive web apps.
- selcuka 1y ago
  Sure. The point is, people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Sure. The point is, people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so. No, not really. There is more to picking up a tool than some rando's simplistic drive-by judgement. For example, say you have a React SPA managed by a team which built and manage their whole platform, from the CICD pipelines to the hosting solution. All your infrastructure was built around providing a React app and it's backing services. You are then suddenly faced with a need to implement a feature where a user after clicking on a link navigates to a page that just shows static text. Now think. If you implement that page with React then that's a one-point task. Just create a component, fill it with text, post a PR, done. What level of effort does it take you to implement that with another technology? If you go with the simplistic take that plain HTML is better, now you need to set aside time to sort out support for styling, sort out where and how to deploy those assets, work on a process to automate the deployment, etc etc. Now your simplistic drive for simplicity turned into something between a week and a month's worth of work requiring infrastructure changes and adapting deployment strategies, all of this requiring not-so-trivial QA and testing work. What problems did you solved? Can you describe your system as simpler, and keep a straight face?
    - selcuka 1y ago
      You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter. Not really, the article is about a belief some other approach would be preferable based on superficial and specious reasoning. My example proved that this kind of superficial and simplistic analysis fails to account for critical aspects which are key to explain why a decision was made. This doesn't go away by complaining that I refuted your point while I could easily not refute it. The whole argument is silly, if you think about it. What could possibly possess anyone to believe they are the only ones who know better and everyone else in the world who disagrees is stupid and doesn't know what they are doing?
b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
But why would I want to use a screwdriver when I could use my power drill? Like sure, the screwdriver works, but it's more effort and slower...
- selcuka 1y ago
  Analogies have their limits. That being said, there is always a learning curve. Imagine a situation you want your 5 year old to assist you, but you don't want to teach them how to safely use a power drill.
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    Yeah for sure. Sometimes my drill is not charged and it's easier to grab a screwdriver and give it a few quick turns (https://benton.codes/blackberry https://benton.codes/blackberry), or maybe I can't fit the drill in some space. But normally I'll use the drill even though it's overkill, because I got other stuff to do :P
- godelski 1y ago
  Actually there's lots of times I want to use my hand driven driver rather than a motorized one. I agree with the other comment mentioning analogies have their limits. Are we going to pick them apart just so we can avoid listening? Communication is lossy. Are we having a conversation or just trying to win a game of our own design? I add that because how I interpreted taeric's point of a drill and a driver is just a variation of "apples and oranges." You can concentrate on how they're both round fruit or you can recognize there's differences. I mean walk into any machine shop or go to your uncle that likes to make things and have them explain why they have so many wrenches of the same size but in different styles. Often the subtle differences are the most important part. Hell, how many people even know what those numbers do on the power drill? Making use of them really ups your game. Same with adjusting the power level on your microwave. Yet I rarely see people use these things which are highly effective and help avoid many common mistakes.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

taeric 1y ago

Right, my point was more that thinking you can guess the simplicity of a solution based on the complexity of the tools used to build it is a bit misleading. If only because most simple tools are far more complicated than that allows. Similarly, I would argue that using complex tools to build something generally results in less complicated outcomes. Our computers are basically evidence of that.

marcosdumay 1y ago
Yes, the modern world is a confusing thing. Difficulty of use and reliability don't seem to have any relation to complexity on mass-distributed products. Costs depend almost exclusively on scale, and not on inherent properties.

motorest 1y ago

> The article argues that while React solves a problem, not everyone actually has a problem that requires the complexity of React (i.e. "Build pyramids if you must"). I think this argument isn't valid. The problem that React solves is creating reactive user interfaces. React is trivial to use in it's happy path. The tool's complexity is a red herring because using the tool is trivial and effortless. To me, this argument is based on specious reasoning. Take for example vending machines. They are trivial to use: pick a product, pay, see it drop and pick up your item. It's dead simple. Does it make any sense to whine that buying items from an automated system is a problem not everyone has, and that the vending machine is far more complex than a seller behind a counter? No. What makes sense is the complexity from the user's perspective, and what effort it requires them to achieve the goals they set forth to achieve. And React makes it trivially easy to put together highly performant reactive web apps.

selcuka 1y ago
Sure. The point is, people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so.
- motorest 1y ago
  > Sure. The point is, people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so. No, not really. There is more to picking up a tool than some rando's simplistic drive-by judgement. For example, say you have a React SPA managed by a team which built and manage their whole platform, from the CICD pipelines to the hosting solution. All your infrastructure was built around providing a React app and it's backing services. You are then suddenly faced with a need to implement a feature where a user after clicking on a link navigates to a page that just shows static text. Now think. If you implement that page with React then that's a one-point task. Just create a component, fill it with text, post a PR, done. What level of effort does it take you to implement that with another technology? If you go with the simplistic take that plain HTML is better, now you need to set aside time to sort out support for styling, sort out where and how to deploy those assets, work on a process to automate the deployment, etc etc. Now your simplistic drive for simplicity turned into something between a week and a month's worth of work requiring infrastructure changes and adapting deployment strategies, all of this requiring not-so-trivial QA and testing work. What problems did you solved? Can you describe your system as simpler, and keep a straight face?
  - selcuka 1y ago
    You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter. Not really, the article is about a belief some other approach would be preferable based on superficial and specious reasoning. My example proved that this kind of superficial and simplistic analysis fails to account for critical aspects which are key to explain why a decision was made. This doesn't go away by complaining that I refuted your point while I could easily not refute it. The whole argument is silly, if you think about it. What could possibly possess anyone to believe they are the only ones who know better and everyone else in the world who disagrees is stupid and doesn't know what they are doing?

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago

But why would I want to use a screwdriver when I could use my power drill? Like sure, the screwdriver works, but it's more effort and slower...

selcuka 1y ago
Analogies have their limits. That being said, there is always a learning curve. Imagine a situation you want your 5 year old to assist you, but you don't want to teach them how to safely use a power drill.
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
  Yeah for sure. Sometimes my drill is not charged and it's easier to grab a screwdriver and give it a few quick turns (https://benton.codes/blackberry https://benton.codes/blackberry), or maybe I can't fit the drill in some space. But normally I'll use the drill even though it's overkill, because I got other stuff to do :P
godelski 1y ago
Actually there's lots of times I want to use my hand driven driver rather than a motorized one. I agree with the other comment mentioning analogies have their limits. Are we going to pick them apart just so we can avoid listening? Communication is lossy. Are we having a conversation or just trying to win a game of our own design? I add that because how I interpreted taeric's point of a drill and a driver is just a variation of "apples and oranges." You can concentrate on how they're both round fruit or you can recognize there's differences. I mean walk into any machine shop or go to your uncle that likes to make things and have them explain why they have so many wrenches of the same size but in different styles. Often the subtle differences are the most important part. Hell, how many people even know what those numbers do on the power drill? Making use of them really ups your game. Same with adjusting the power level on your microwave. Yet I rarely see people use these things which are highly effective and help avoid many common mistakes.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]