3 ms·

Based on your comment, I'm guessing you've never actually implemented anything with a client-side JS framework. Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inheren

Based on your comment, I'm guessing you've never actually implemented anything with a client-side JS framework. Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users (over traditional server-side MVC + client-side Ajax + DOM manipulation, or whatever). Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Again, to be clear, this does nothing for users. Unless, of course, you consider that reduced barriers to implementing rich interactivity induce developers to use it create better user experiences, and that purpose-specific tools reduce the surface area for experience-disrupting bugs (which, statistically, you'd have more of, since you're operating at a lower level of abstraction and having to constantly repeat yourself [unless, of course, you decided to generalize all your Ajax & DOM manipulation and wrote a framework... oh wait]). But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone. (Disclosure: the foregoing is based on ~1 year of experience developing applications with AngularJS).

papsosouid 14y ago
I'm not sure how you would come to such a conclusion, you must have some very serious bias clouding your ability to objectively read what people say. I've written several client side javascript apps, although obviously I'm not dumb enough to actually write them in javascript when there's so many "tolerable language -> javascript" compilers available. >Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users I didn't say anything like that. I said 90% of people writing client side javascript interfaces are doing so for no user benefit, just following a fad. There's plenty of cases where an interface is better in javascript, unfortunately that's only ~10% of the cases people are using javascript for. >Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Compared to using horrible shit like ruby on rails perhaps, but compared to decent tools using a javascript framework is a significant step backwards. That's one of the reasons we only do it when it helps the user, rather than all the time just to make our stuff worse. >But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone You really need to make the effort to read what you reply to. If you just want to make up nonsense to respond to, that's what blogs are for.
coldtea 14y ago
>Based on your comment, I'm guessing you've never actually implemented anything with a client-side JS framework. Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users (over traditional server-side MVC + client-side Ajax + DOM manipulation, or whatever). So basically you attack him only to agree with him? Nice. >Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. No, it does not. It makes creating rich interfaces a hodgepodge of immature and fragile client side technologies.

papsosouid 14y ago

I'm not sure how you would come to such a conclusion, you must have some very serious bias clouding your ability to objectively read what people say. I've written several client side javascript apps, although obviously I'm not dumb enough to actually write them in javascript when there's so many "tolerable language -> javascript" compilers available. >Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users I didn't say anything like that. I said 90% of people writing client side javascript interfaces are doing so for no user benefit, just following a fad. There's plenty of cases where an interface is better in javascript, unfortunately that's only ~10% of the cases people are using javascript for. >Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. Compared to using horrible shit like ruby on rails perhaps, but compared to decent tools using a javascript framework is a significant step backwards. That's one of the reasons we only do it when it helps the user, rather than all the time just to make our stuff worse. >But hey, don't let me keep you from thinking whatever keeps you inside your comfort zone You really need to make the effort to read what you reply to. If you just want to make up nonsense to respond to, that's what blogs are for.

coldtea 14y ago

>Based on your comment, I'm guessing you've never actually implemented anything with a client-side JS framework. Yes, strictly speaking, there's nothing inherent to client-side JS MVC frameworks that creates a better experience for end-users (over traditional server-side MVC + client-side Ajax + DOM manipulation, or whatever). So basically you attack him only to agree with him? Nice. >Where they do provide benefit is to developers, for whom it makes creating rich interfaces absurdly easy. No, it does not. It makes creating rich interfaces a hodgepodge of immature and fragile client side technologies.