
You Don't Need - b01t
https://github.com/you-dont-need
======
yoz-y
Heh, the "you don't need GUI" one is extremely underwhelming. Anybody who
knows what terminal is already knows about all those commands and none of them
is easier than a GUI. It could make more impact if it actually explained tasks
that are harder to do in GUI than in the command line, such as massive
renaming of the files, filtering files depending on content and so on.

~~~
analog31
I use both CLI and GUI, but here's an area where I think the CLI just rocks:
Instructions for installing and configuring software. Typical instructions for
Linux:

    
    
        sudo apt-get install foo 
        sudo apt-get install bar
        cd ~/somewhere
        sudo nano something, change these lines
    

The same instructions for Windows involves screen after screen of text
interspersed with annotated pictures of dialogs, which become obsolete when
the OS is revised.

In fact, I've seen an increasing number of Windows installation tips being
given in CLI terms:

    
    
        windows+R cmd
        enter this command
    

It would be interesting to see some sort of tool, online or within the system,
where you enter a command string and it explains what the command does.

~~~
nightski
I'd argue that has more to do with a unified package manager and installation
process than GUI vs. CLI.

~~~
tzakrajs
And I argue it has more to with the fact that *nix applications are
traditionally configured via static configuration files as opposed to
interactive process.

~~~
ams6110
The real benefit is that they are configured with _text_ files, not a
monolithic inscrutable system "registry."

~~~
enraged_camel
This is about how the user interacts with the configuration process, not where
the configuration variables are stored.

------
failrate
I have enjoyed spending hours removing libraries full of bootstrap and angular
and replacing them with a simple CSS page and a JavaScript one-liner in my
current work project.

~~~
eterm
You've enjoyed it, but those hours cost your business, and is that really
worth it?

Some beliefs which are frequently displayed in these parts:

> Money on chairs / desks / PCs are no object because developers cost money,
> not those things

> Ship quickly and iterate

> Make it, make it work, make it fast

> Write code your successor can maintain

And then HN goes ahead and upvotes a boast about spending their (expensive)
time unpicking libraries from code.

The point of "you might not need X" is to encourage package maintainers to
keep their sub-package footprint small, not that end-users shouldn't use X.

I'm sure you'll be back to suggest that you've delivered "500% speed-up" or
some other nonsense metric and I look forward to that.

Ultimately, custom business owned code which attempts to deliver the value of
angular is just a future maintenance nightmare, and I say that as someone who
really doesn't like angular.

If you really replaced angular with a "javascript one-liner" I'd like to see
that line!

~~~
mixedCase
I'm going to take a guess and say he won big in maintainability and
performance on low-end devices.

~~~
failrate
If it will operate with no js at all, then it is also more compatible with
some security requirements I have. Don't get me wrong, I've always been a big
fan of JavaScript, warts and all. However, in this particular instance, what
should have been a simple server rendered login page was written with a full
SPA application development mindset.

------
pksadiq
I feel a strong need for You-Dont-Need-Windows

~~~
lqdc13
Try verifying authenticode signatures in exes correctly without Windows.

~~~
pksadiq
> Try verifying authenticode signatures in exes correctly without Windows.

When You-Dont-Need-Windows, You don't need this either. Do you?

~~~
tf2manu994
If you want to compile to windows, you absolutely do.

~~~
saghm
I think the argument/joke he's trying to make is that he'd be happier without
anyone using Windows (which would conveniently solve the problem of having to
compile to Windows)

~~~
lqdc13
I get the joke and I've been aggressively trying to avoid it. But you can't,
unless you only deal with phones or server backend.

Coming from a Linux user, for most people, Windows is the only usable non-
Apple-hardware OS, unfortunately.

~~~
pksadiq
I was able to convince several people to move from windows to GNU/Linux. In
some cases, it didn't took more than 2 minutes!

Case 1: Religious/moral people: If you are using unauthorized (pirated?)
copies of windows, isn't it like stealing? Think of the amount you are
stealing just by installing M$-something, Adobe something, etc.

How can you wish that your money/wealth shouldn't be stealed when you steals
somebody else's money?

Case 2: Business people: Have you ever contacted M$ for support? Then why
would you pay them, just for something that runs viruses smoothly, and
occasionally having blue screen of death?

Case 3: Personal: I came to know that I was like a frog in a well when I was
introduced to GNU/Linux. Thanks to Microsoft for wasting my 10 years of time.
Now I know about windows, may be more than some windows admin would do, just
because I don't use windows anymore!

Serious GNU/Linux users may not have a solution known for an immediate
problem. But they know how to find a solution or where to look for it.

~~~
saghm
I generally tend to shy away from trying to convince people that they should
change their operating system. I find it quite annoying in the (thankfully
rare) occasions that some overzealous Mac user tries to tell me that my choice
of machine/operating system is inferior, so I find it hard to believe that
other people wouldn't feel the same way if I tried to someone else that their
choice is incorrect (even if I feel strongly that it is).

Of course, if someone is interested in learning more about Linux, I'll happily
teach them as much as they want to know and give them my opinions of the
advantages of using Linux. But unless the person is already open to hearing my
opinions on the topic, it tends to be a waste of both of our time.

------
voltagex_
Can we have "You Don't Need Electron" too?

~~~
flukus
Can we expand that to node and the entire ecosystem?

~~~
xkcd-sucks
Electron.js: Run Electron apps in any browser.

~~No external dependencies~~ Builds a statically linked Chrome, so just `npm
install` and you're good to go

~~~
PudgePacket
_eye twitch_

------
mdadm
Some of these things are actually pretty cool IMO, like
[http://keithclark.co.uk/articles/pure-css-parallax-
websites/...](http://keithclark.co.uk/articles/pure-css-parallax-
websites/demo3/) from [https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-
Javascript#Pa...](https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-
Javascript#Parallax)

~~~
moeamaya
In theory css parallax is brilliant and should replace all bloated js
versions. In practice, it's unusable. We spent 40 hours as two experienced
frontend engineers trying to get the example to work on a relatively simple
example but it requires such a specific markup that it became too convoluted.
Eventually I gave in and looked for a js solution but those were much larger
and slower than we wanted. Ultimately, ended up writing a short 100-line open
source vanilla js lib, and a bunch of folks seemed to be having our same
issues:
[https://github.com/dixonandmoe/rellax](https://github.com/dixonandmoe/rellax).
That said I still love to explore the extents of css' capabilities but this is
one time where it fell short.

~~~
mladen5
Exact same problem, actually tried making this example mentioned here to work
on other browsers besides Chrome and failed to do so. Your rellax library
looks really useful i just hope i won't have to build parallax websites
anymore.

------
lacampbell
I am looking forward to "you don't need Git" :D

------
gog
It would be nice if the examples would have a browser compatibility table.

Without it is is just a waste of time.

The first one I tried (CSS only accordion) takes you to a site where the
author himself says that this is an experiment and was not meant for use in
production (no IE support).

------
thegreatpeter
This is great but as the author points out - outside of primitives you might
as well use lodash.

Also, compatibility for these noon lodash methods are chrome and Firefox.

------
Somasis
Some of these CSS ones have to be a joke. Using CSS based font creation?
Seriously?

------
banhfun
Someone should create one for jQuery and Bootstrap

~~~
mixedCase
There's this:
[http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/](http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/)

------
partycoder
In the case of lodash, those functions exist mostly to interoperate with other
lodash functions, like chain.

------
emilong
_.get() is the killer feature of lodash.

------
flowless
You don't need web apps would be nice as well :)

------
Snow_44
You don't need javascript is really cool~

