3 ms·

Popular javascript frameworks exist to "work around" problems with javascript and CSS frameworks exist to "work around" problems with CSS? There's no magic wit

by nkozyra 11y ago

Popular javascript frameworks exist to "work around" problems with javascript and CSS frameworks exist to "work around" problems with CSS? There's no magic with Angular or Bootstrap, they're codifying an approach using 100% native JS or CSS. Even SASS and LESS are just alternative ways to produce CSS. This is not novel in computing.

bradhe 11y ago
Totally true. That's like saying the Ruby on Rails exists because Ruby is somehow deficient.
- fao_ 11y ago
  But, your analogy is flawed; the situations are incomparable. You're not forced to use Rails for your server application, many other software exists as well as Rails: Django, PHP, etc. However you /are/ forced to use Javascript, CSS and the DOM; Unless you're a Big Browser Vendor and can try and coerce support (and even so, the amount of websites made in something like Dash is pitiful afaik). People made frameworks and libraries that make it bearable (SCSS, JQuery, etc), but that doesn't mean everything is solved...
  - nkozyra 11y ago
    That's a totally different analogy altogether. The argument expressed on that page isn't that there is a lack of choices, but that the choices are inherently flawed (and somehow "fixed" by frameworks that lie on top).
krapp 11y ago
This seems to basically be the argument for preferring compile-to-js languages over vanilla javascript, even though by definition any advantages in the former have to exist in the latter. Yet if I were to call coffeescript an overly complex javascript framework, people would probably strenuously disagree. But that is what it amounts to.
- amsheehan 11y ago
  I disagree, but not strenuously :) Purescript compiles down to javascript but helps save programmers from themselves by introducing a better type system as well as great data structures, and functional paradigms Typescript adds static typing and OOP CoffeeScript...is syntactic sugar? (okay maybe I agree with the coffeescript sentiment)
  - krapp 11y ago
    Fair enough. Although I don't entirely agree that compiling a statically typed language into javascript really helps much, since the end result is still... javascript in a browser. But the last time I tried to defend that I got almost universally disagreed with, so I'll concede that the process might have value I just don't see.

by nkozyra 11y ago

bradhe 11y ago

Totally true. That's like saying the Ruby on Rails exists because Ruby is somehow deficient.

fao_ 11y ago
But, your analogy is flawed; the situations are incomparable. You're not forced to use Rails for your server application, many other software exists as well as Rails: Django, PHP, etc. However you /are/ forced to use Javascript, CSS and the DOM; Unless you're a Big Browser Vendor and can try and coerce support (and even so, the amount of websites made in something like Dash is pitiful afaik). People made frameworks and libraries that make it bearable (SCSS, JQuery, etc), but that doesn't mean everything is solved...
- nkozyra 11y ago
  That's a totally different analogy altogether. The argument expressed on that page isn't that there is a lack of choices, but that the choices are inherently flawed (and somehow "fixed" by frameworks that lie on top).

krapp 11y ago

This seems to basically be the argument for preferring compile-to-js languages over vanilla javascript, even though by definition any advantages in the former have to exist in the latter. Yet if I were to call coffeescript an overly complex javascript framework, people would probably strenuously disagree. But that is what it amounts to.

amsheehan 11y ago
I disagree, but not strenuously :) Purescript compiles down to javascript but helps save programmers from themselves by introducing a better type system as well as great data structures, and functional paradigms Typescript adds static typing and OOP CoffeeScript...is syntactic sugar? (okay maybe I agree with the coffeescript sentiment)
- krapp 11y ago
  Fair enough. Although I don't entirely agree that compiling a statically typed language into javascript really helps much, since the end result is still... javascript in a browser. But the last time I tried to defend that I got almost universally disagreed with, so I'll concede that the process might have value I just don't see.