3 ms·

React and similar frameworks are for the developer, not the user. But since it seems you don't use large scale UI based applications, you don't see a need for t

React and similar frameworks are for the developer, not the user. But since it seems you don't use large scale UI based applications, you don't see a need for them.

d3Xt3r 1y ago
I'm a developer too (well, technically DevOps and a hobby dev), and I can't think of any place where it's actually needed, where a traditional app can't do the job.
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  Of course, nothing is strictly needed, you could write your code in assembly. But just as we built higher abstractions on that, so too do people do so for UI code. If you haven't written much UI code, then I can see why you think it's not useful, but it doesn't mean that it's not, for those who do.
austin-cheney 1y ago
React and similar frameworks are more for the employer than the developer. A capable developer can execute without them, but employers need them to vastly widen candidate selection without investing in training.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  Not really, when the training burden is the same between knowing DOM manipulation and knowing React, yet the latter is more scalable when multiple people are working on a project, and just in general even for solo development without having to go through the annoying process of imperatively adding DOM nodes to the HTML. Anyone "capable" can do it but it doesn't mean it's the best way. This is like the same argument C or C++ devs use when they talk about memory safety as opposed to Rust which lets the computer handle it.
  - austin-cheney 1y ago
    That misses the point. There is a massive difference between writing code and actually learning to write an application. When you talk about the best way you completely miss the point because it implies there is only one best way. When you are less restricted you can let the business requirements drive the design of the application. With a large framework the framework determines the application’s requirements. There was an article on the front page yesterday about this very thing regarding Zig compared to React.
    - satvikpendem 1y ago
      I should say better, not best, because yes there is no best way, but there are of course better ways, eg spaghetti code vs well architected code. > When you are less restricted you can let the business requirements drive the design of the application. With a large framework the framework determines the application’s requirements. This only ostensibly makes sense on first glance. Business requirements are not technical, they are about what the business needs done. In that case, a framework has no bearing on what the requirements are; if I need a button and a form filled out, it can be done in vanilla JS or React, there is no difference to the end user. And I'm not sure why anyone would compare a programming language to a library, much less one not remotely connected to each other, because the level of abstraction in architecting programs in both are very different and thus the code and architecture will not be comparable.
      - austin-cheney 1y ago
        The code could be spaghetti even with a framework and is not necessarily spaghetti without one. The big challenge when talking about use of frameworks is that developers always try to make it about some extremely subjective criteria that’s only in their own self-interest like easiness (for me) or best (whatever that means). Real criteria like costs or user concerns don’t up until way down the line. Its a massive difference in perspective that many developers refuse to consider and everyone else looks at as a individual contributor capability/maturity limitation.

React and similar frameworks are for the developer, not the user. But since it seems you don't use large scale UI based applications, you don't see a need for them.

d3Xt3r 1y ago

I'm a developer too (well, technically DevOps and a hobby dev), and I can't think of any place where it's actually needed, where a traditional app can't do the job.

satvikpendem 1y ago
Of course, nothing is strictly needed, you could write your code in assembly. But just as we built higher abstractions on that, so too do people do so for UI code. If you haven't written much UI code, then I can see why you think it's not useful, but it doesn't mean that it's not, for those who do.

austin-cheney 1y ago

React and similar frameworks are more for the employer than the developer. A capable developer can execute without them, but employers need them to vastly widen candidate selection without investing in training.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
satvikpendem 1y ago
Not really, when the training burden is the same between knowing DOM manipulation and knowing React, yet the latter is more scalable when multiple people are working on a project, and just in general even for solo development without having to go through the annoying process of imperatively adding DOM nodes to the HTML. Anyone "capable" can do it but it doesn't mean it's the best way. This is like the same argument C or C++ devs use when they talk about memory safety as opposed to Rust which lets the computer handle it.
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  That misses the point. There is a massive difference between writing code and actually learning to write an application. When you talk about the best way you completely miss the point because it implies there is only one best way. When you are less restricted you can let the business requirements drive the design of the application. With a large framework the framework determines the application’s requirements. There was an article on the front page yesterday about this very thing regarding Zig compared to React.
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    I should say better, not best, because yes there is no best way, but there are of course better ways, eg spaghetti code vs well architected code. > When you are less restricted you can let the business requirements drive the design of the application. With a large framework the framework determines the application’s requirements. This only ostensibly makes sense on first glance. Business requirements are not technical, they are about what the business needs done. In that case, a framework has no bearing on what the requirements are; if I need a button and a form filled out, it can be done in vanilla JS or React, there is no difference to the end user. And I'm not sure why anyone would compare a programming language to a library, much less one not remotely connected to each other, because the level of abstraction in architecting programs in both are very different and thus the code and architecture will not be comparable.
    - austin-cheney 1y ago
      The code could be spaghetti even with a framework and is not necessarily spaghetti without one. The big challenge when talking about use of frameworks is that developers always try to make it about some extremely subjective criteria that’s only in their own self-interest like easiness (for me) or best (whatever that means). Real criteria like costs or user concerns don’t up until way down the line. Its a massive difference in perspective that many developers refuse to consider and everyone else looks at as a individual contributor capability/maturity limitation.