
Reactive and Component Frameworks for “Old Fart” Programmers - Edmond
https://blog.codesolvent.com/2019/08/reactive-and-component-frameworks-for.html
======
pier25
> Vue is the most Javascripty of these frameworks

I'm not sure the React folks would agree to that :)

~~~
dlbucci
They could, but common use of React requires JSX, which means you need to
transpile to use it. Not very "javascripty" in my opinion, at least compared
to Vue, where you can include Vue via a script and be off and running.

~~~
pier25
> _Not very "javascripty" in my opinion_

Oh I agree, but the React guys are always bragging that JSX is just
JavaScript.

------
petilon
If this page is about components then there is a major omission here: Web
Components. HTML custom elements are the way to go if you want to build
reusable components that work in any framework. Custom elements are easy to
write and are the way to go going forward, especially when Edge switches over
to Chromium.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/Web_Components/...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_custom_elements)

~~~
sbergot
I have yet to see any success story involving web components or even a
convincing article that explains what they bring to the table. I am not sure
what would be the added value of a component usable by all frameworks given
the variety of programming models out there.

~~~
petilon
Compatibility, longevity, reliability and simplicity are what they bring to
the table.

Compatible because it is a W3 standard implemented natively by all browsers
(including upcoming Edge). Even if your company has applications built using
multiple frameworks (including future frameworks) you can write a component
once and reuse it in all applications regardless of framework.

Longevity because this is a W3 standard. Frameworks come and go, but things
built natively into the browser are here to stay.

Reliability because of Shadow DOM. You don't have to worry about id clashes,
CSS classname conflicts etc when you add a component to an existing page.

Simplicity because there is no SDK or library or framework involved. It takes
just a few lines of code to write a web component.

Regarding programming models, it doesn't matter. Web Components behave like
built-in HTML elements, and all programming models support HTML Elements.

------
jpangs88
I have always found the big 3 JavaScript frameworks to be three versions of
the same thing with slight differences. As someone who as worked in frontend
for a while I am vexed in why people think the skills from one framework don't
translate to the others.

I remember talking to someone about working on a project and they asked me if
I had worked in Angular and I said no but I have worked in Vue and React to
which I got a reply of "you should really learn angular."

~~~
pugworthy
Speaking as an old fart, it's not about getting one framework but not the
other, it's about the concept of the framework.

For me, coming from a heavy Ruby on Rails background, I learned to just "trust
the magic" with Angular (which is what I've used). Change the variable here,
trust it will update in the component on the screen. Don't ask why.

The other part about frameworks that was hard for a bit was, "But what part
runs on the server?" \- as in, that idea that the code on the browser is
generated by something on a server, and whatever that server part is actually
talks to the API.

------
samirillian
I was really hoping this was just gonna be about backbonejs

~~~
rurban
And I was missing flutter, which is more grey bearded than react.

~~~
craftinator
I second this!

------
codesushi42
Component based frameworks are nothing new.

Does anyone remember Java Server Faces? I hope not.

~~~
mooreds
I remember tapestry, which was heavily component based (but still compiled
down to servlets).

Heck, I remember ATG Dynamo, where everything was a javabean, including all
the server side components.

------
milemi
Where does the author get the idea that it's ok to refer to people as "Old
Fart" Programmers?

~~~
Edmond
OP here. I am an "Old Fart" Programmer myself, no offense intended :)

~~~
asark
Good lord, don't worry about this BS, it's clearly fine outside the world of
fringe complaint-seeking Internet loonies. Or well-attuned trolls, which I'd
say is more likely in this case (in which case: well done troll, I mean look
at this thread! But then HN's got some of the worst troll defenses around, so,
middling victory).

Anywho, unless you're punning with "brought to bare" it should be "brought to
bear", as in "bearing", as in the direction of something.

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bring_to_bear](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bring_to_bear)

~~~
milemi
Hi, the fringe complaint-seeking internet loony here. Ageism is a real thing
with consequences affecting the very livelihood of millions of people. I don't
know the author's age, but people in their thirties sometimes think calling
themselves old farts is cute. My bet is they'll change their minds once they
hit their fifties, if they don't exit the industry by then. But dismissing all
that as trolling is certainly the easy way to go.

~~~
youeseh
Ah, but you're mixing industry with skill here. I can be an old-fart surfer
and not be a paid surfer, for example.

