3 ms·

I don't see what the problem is here. Angular isn't going away - I daresay the 1.x will be maintained. EmberJS looks rock solid. Backbone hasn't suddenly become

I don't see what the problem is here. Angular isn't going away - I daresay the 1.x will be maintained. EmberJS looks rock solid. Backbone hasn't suddenly become useless just because React is around. A proliferation of projects is an indication of an exciting and experimental community. If you run off half-cocked and take on an unproven and unmaintained library and build an application on sand then the fault lies with you, not the ecosystem.

emodendroket 12y ago
> If you run off half-cocked and take on an unproven and unmaintained library and build an application on sand then the fault lies with you, not the ecosystem. The entire contention is that it's difficult to tell which ones are going to become unmaintained because of the amount of churn.
- colinramsay 12y ago
  For which the writer makes an entirely unconvincing argument.
xasos 12y ago
I concur, however it is burning out a lot of web developers. Javascipt is moving way too fast for many people with the constant new libraries and frameworks coming out. Having to learn and write code in Angular 1.x, then having to re-write it for 2.x is a pain no one should have to do. But it is the only way developers can gain the advantages in performance from the newer iteration.
- collyw 12y ago
  Its quite a waste as well. I am a back end developer who has been venturing to the front end world. Having to change frameworks all the time means never getting to know any in depth. Whereas on the back end I can stick with a solid framework - Django, and the stuff I learned 3 and a half years ago is still relevant. And the SQL I learned ten years ago is also relevant. And I can do a lot more complex querying now than I did ten years ago, when I struggled to learn LEFT JOIN syntax. I don't see any of my JavaScript experience being as long term. (Actually the NoSQL movement is causing similar issues in the back end, with so many devs insisting on using the latest new key-value store when a relational database would be the most suitable tool, and the time spent performance tuning rather than learning a new query language).

emodendroket 12y ago

> If you run off half-cocked and take on an unproven and unmaintained library and build an application on sand then the fault lies with you, not the ecosystem. The entire contention is that it's difficult to tell which ones are going to become unmaintained because of the amount of churn.

colinramsay 12y ago
For which the writer makes an entirely unconvincing argument.

xasos 12y ago

I concur, however it is burning out a lot of web developers. Javascipt is moving way too fast for many people with the constant new libraries and frameworks coming out. Having to learn and write code in Angular 1.x, then having to re-write it for 2.x is a pain no one should have to do. But it is the only way developers can gain the advantages in performance from the newer iteration.

collyw 12y ago
Its quite a waste as well. I am a back end developer who has been venturing to the front end world. Having to change frameworks all the time means never getting to know any in depth. Whereas on the back end I can stick with a solid framework - Django, and the stuff I learned 3 and a half years ago is still relevant. And the SQL I learned ten years ago is also relevant. And I can do a lot more complex querying now than I did ten years ago, when I struggled to learn LEFT JOIN syntax. I don't see any of my JavaScript experience being as long term. (Actually the NoSQL movement is causing similar issues in the back end, with so many devs insisting on using the latest new key-value store when a relational database would be the most suitable tool, and the time spent performance tuning rather than learning a new query language).