daliwali

12 ms·

61.
by daliwali 9y ago
If shaming isn't the purpose of downvoting, or the soft suppression of controversial opinions, then I don't know what is.
62.
by daliwali 9y ago
A paragraph of well thought out text will be ignored. A critical remark on the web framework du jour will be carefully deconstructed, rebutted, and shamed. Funny how that works.
63.
by daliwali 9y ago
I've done very little marketing, and I am effectively a nobody without a huge following or elite credentials unlike some of the people behind the most popular frameworks. It would be completely unfair to judge me based on popularity an
64.
by daliwali 9y ago
You don't need to rehash the marketing pitch of React here. It's the same old "virtual DOM fast, real DOM slow" that I've heard countless times from fanboys and repeated ad infinitum in any discussion about React. W
65.
by daliwali 9y ago
>The complexity of how to render some stuff into the screen is not [my problem]. But it is. You are depending on some complex third party code to do your job, how you want to punt responsibility to someone else is irrelevant. Web develop
66.
by daliwali 9y ago
It is a dogma that React has an "extremely simple" public interface. It's got two different flavors of "components", "lifecycle hooks", "synthetic events", "prop types", and more that I
67.
by daliwali 9y ago
I'm not saying, "don't use an abstraction on top of vanilla DOM code". Better performance just isn't a valid reason to use a DOM abstraction, it's a non-argument.
68.
by daliwali 9y ago
You literally said, "complexity is not my problem". You are the problem. This is how projects end up with millions of lines of black box dependencies. This is why `node_modules` folders that are hundreds of megabytes exist. Take a
69.
by daliwali 9y ago
Using class names was just an example, people may get the wrong impression that has anything to do with the variable name. It could have been made more explicit, but I wanted to be as terse as possible: <h1 class="name" d
70.
by daliwali 9y ago
These are marketing buzzwords that can be said about every single web framework, effectively thought-terminating cliches. Every fanboy says their preferred framework is the simplest, fastest, most scalable and most testable. In the car anal
71.
by daliwali 9y ago
I think the conventional dogma that one must resort to a framework for a large web app is wrong. Your assumption that simpler is more "hacky" or less efficient, just isn't true. One can use built-in constructs like for loops
72.
by daliwali 9y ago
I think it's a UML activity diagram, which is in fact a flow chart.
73.
by daliwali 9y ago
Your analogy isn't apt, a better analogy would be judging a car to be difficult to maintain by looking at the listings of all the embedded software. I know a guy who restored a 1960's VW Beetle to working condition with minimal
74.
by daliwali 9y ago
Why does the third party library need to be so complex? And why should there be complexity in the first place?
75.
by daliwali 9y ago
There was a previous discussion on how do you know when someone is addicted to over-engineering, and looking at this giant UML diagram, I think this might be the case. The amount of complexity I'm willing to accept is proportional to t
76.
by daliwali 9y ago
Yes, they likely have reverse proxies that cache static content. But this won't work well for any sort of dynamic content, i.e. apps that require login, when data changes in real-time, etc.
77.
by daliwali 9y ago
Most JS server-side rendering never approaches anywhere near string concatenation performance, and I've tried. Whatever abstraction you use has to resemble string concatenation without doing much else, and it's really, really hard
78.
by daliwali 9y ago
The string building approach is the fastest, and it's the benchmark to beat. Any other abstraction is just piling more work on top and is generally just a more inefficient way to output HTML. The most lightweight pseudo-DOM implementat
79.
by daliwali 9y ago
>a machine that picks fruit when it's ripe How does the machine recognize fruit? It must have some training data set to classify what is fruit and what is not, and which are ripe. Humans may be "experts" at simple stuff li
80.
by daliwali 9y ago
The term "AI" is so overused that it can mean anything. Expert systems are considered "AI" for that matter. They may not necessarily use the most computationally expensive methods like neural networks, but "AI"
81.
by daliwali 9y ago
Expert Systems of the past had user interfaces, though crude ones such as Java applets and basic HTML forms. UI evolves too fast and new means of HCI emerged like VR/AR, IoT, etc. Most likely the human interaction will have to be made
82.
by daliwali 9y ago
Vertical AI = Expert System, just an updated rebranding from 1980s to now. An expert system may be defined as: >a piece of software which uses databases of expert knowledge to offer advice or make decisions. The methods of inference have
83.
by daliwali 9y ago
Ask them to make some simple yet non-trivial feature, like a contact form on a web page. The overengineer will introduce a build system, several functional programming utilities, an HTTP client wrapper library, a DOM abstraction library, an
84.
by daliwali 9y ago
Thanks for the suggestion, but for a good reason, I couldn't be bothered to use some external service to do it, since it will be replaced with the actual product. Replacing that stupid mailto link is just another motivation to ship som
85.
by daliwali 9y ago
For marketing-tech, sure it's a great model, but getting out an MVP as fast as possible doesn't always make sense. Sometimes it takes an order of magnitude more effort to get to "minimum" or "viable" depending
86.
by daliwali 9y ago
I started doing this recently by quitting my job, and I currently have no income. There is this assumption that one must build a minimum viable product that has to be released as quickly as possible, so much that it's become startup ma
87.
by daliwali 9y ago
There's nothing in this guide that couldn't be found on 1000s of other introductory blog posts. This is just "What to Use With React 2017". I find it almost disturbing that front-end jobs around the world have adopted a
88.
by daliwali 9y ago
I used both and still prefer Browserify. No configuration required, it just does what you want. Also its source code is quite short and easy to grok.
89.
by daliwali 9y ago
The pedants on Hacker News understood what the OP meant, yet nitpick on his use of "programmer". I agree that there is too much window dressing on the web, an aesthetic defined by gratuitous graphic elements and distractions. The
90.
by daliwali 9y ago
My theory is that they have little incentive to improve performance. All of your professional network is there, and it's not like there's another website with nearly as many people on it for that purpose. So you will use it no mat

More ›