Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, none of this platform is sane. It's not designed, it's evolved. Embrace the madness or fail.

The web is not desktop applications. The network is always there, the network is slow, the network is asynchronous. The network can fail. You cannot abstract over this with a clever library. Unless you don't care about pushing out 4mb of javascript before first render, you can't ignore it.

The front-end is not a server based application. It's relatively straightforward to just echo out some html from a server. This works pretty well, and conceptually it's easy. But the UI has events. Events are asynchronous. You cannot abstract over this. It cannot be ignored. Unless all you need is the off the shelf components and no custom interactions, animations or logic.

Every UI framework for the front end is aimed at solving a specific problem, a specific complexity. Before adopting ANY of them, you have to seriously ask yourself if you actually have that problem before just jumping on the bandwagon- in most cases, in my experience, you probably don't. But by adopting some "framework" you've just added a problem. you've added a complexity. If you had the problem, it might be worth it. You might have netted less complexity.

But probably not.

Browsers have come a long way in 10 years, if you haven't been paying attention. Most of the cross browser problems have disappeared unless you're using new things like web sockets, web rtc or indexedDB, or something crazy like that. The browser is already a UI framework with all the basic widgets, text layout, image manipulation, audio processing, etc. etc.

From a perspective of a user of your website or service, ask yourself what value something like react is really adding.




This is one the most insightful responses, so much of this rings true to me.

It's relatively straightforward to just echo out some html from a server. This works pretty well, and conceptually it's easy.

I remember reading an article recently (I can't find it) that argued that the human readable part of the web should have been just this, a place for static pages to render and be read. The reason it works so well is because that was what it was designed and build for. So it has basically just completely escalated by its attempt to replace native applications. Except it is and always will be worse at everything a native application does.

You have to seriously ask yourself if you actually have that problem before just jumping on the bandwagon.

I suppose that is sort of complicated by the fact that every framework out there tries to sell itself as the best thing since sliced bread, except advertising what is for.

Browsers have come a long way in 10 years, if you haven't been paying attention.

It is absolutely amazing what has been achieved.


To clarify, when I said "the web is not desktop applications", I meant that you cannot program a "web app" as if it's a desktop application. The assumptions are all different. The entire execution model, and the way modules are included is different. You can achieve things very much like a desktop application, as far as a user is concerned. But: The network will slap you if you ever decide it's something the compiler is taking care of for you.


> No, none of this platform is sane. It's not designed, it's evolved. Embrace the madness or fail.

Username checks out. Thanks, ZenPsycho!


so from the other comments I understand that flash was better designed for the web.


your sentence makes no sense. You design for a specific outcome for a specific audience. "the web" is not w goal or audience




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: