4 ms·
tl;dr: they all require and ungodly amount of abstraction to do something on top of a flawed platform, and they don't do it particularly well either.
by pikzen 12y ago
tl;dr: they all require and ungodly amount of abstraction to do something on top of a flawed platform, and they don't do it particularly well either.
- eyko 12y agohere we go again... But what I have emphasised on is that vanilla JS, with zero dependencies, is actually shorter code than any other solution. And works just as well. Not that you'd want to develop all applications without the help from libs/frameworks, but sometimes that abstraction simply adds unnecessary complexity.
- nawitus 12y agoWell, of course frameworks add more boilerplate when you compare small problems. You get the benefits of a framework only after your application scales.
- 1stop 12y agoSo are you arguing vanilla js is the better option? Or that the web is a flawed platform and should be avoided?
- untog 12y agoOK, what alternative do you suggest for a solution that works across iOS, Android, Windows, OS X, Linux and requires no installation from the user?