> ...is ridiculous and needlessly derogatory. There are a LOT of JS devs in the world, and the "typical" ones obviously understand this, or you wouldn't be on the internet right now.
I admit I speak from my anecdotal experience, but probably so are you. Also because something works doesn't mean it's properly coded.
> That's why JS projects use Babel. Or Typescript.
Yes, that's what I said. My point is that needing to use Babel is not a good thing.
> This point is objectively false, given the fact that most websites you use are complex JavaScript projects. Also, yeah, there's TypeScript.
First, you don't really know which websites I use. Second, I seriously doubt HN is a complex JS project nor classic desktop Reddit or StackOverflow. Third, TypeScript precisely validates my point.
> That's why JS projects use libraries and "more" dependencies. It's very rarely an issue.
> None of this is new by any means.
> welcome to programming. Change is a constant.
No offense but that is the typical JS developer Stockholm syndrome.
Yes, obviously, there will always be change in all aspects of life. In any other language things are much more stable.
> Of course! it is still challenging to build products, and make good UX.
You are missing the point which is: SPAs are solving problems that are already solved at the browser level.
> This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a SPA is.
Not really, you are fundamentally cherry picking. The core experience in those sites are not SPAs, it is irrelevant if they have some SPA mini site somewhere.
> This leads to a philosophical discussion of the difference between a website and a web application
Exactly, and that's my whole point.
There is an abuse of the SPA architecture for websites that are not applications. Even when the development complexity is a lot higher with not many benefits for regular websites.
Obviously, that's precisely my point.
> ...is ridiculous and needlessly derogatory. There are a LOT of JS devs in the world, and the "typical" ones obviously understand this, or you wouldn't be on the internet right now.
I admit I speak from my anecdotal experience, but probably so are you. Also because something works doesn't mean it's properly coded.
> That's why JS projects use Babel. Or Typescript.
Yes, that's what I said. My point is that needing to use Babel is not a good thing.
> This point is objectively false, given the fact that most websites you use are complex JavaScript projects. Also, yeah, there's TypeScript.
First, you don't really know which websites I use. Second, I seriously doubt HN is a complex JS project nor classic desktop Reddit or StackOverflow. Third, TypeScript precisely validates my point.
> That's why JS projects use libraries and "more" dependencies. It's very rarely an issue.
> None of this is new by any means.
> welcome to programming. Change is a constant.
No offense but that is the typical JS developer Stockholm syndrome.
Yes, obviously, there will always be change in all aspects of life. In any other language things are much more stable.
> Of course! it is still challenging to build products, and make good UX.
You are missing the point which is: SPAs are solving problems that are already solved at the browser level.
> This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a SPA is.
Not really, you are fundamentally cherry picking. The core experience in those sites are not SPAs, it is irrelevant if they have some SPA mini site somewhere.
> This leads to a philosophical discussion of the difference between a website and a web application
Exactly, and that's my whole point.
There is an abuse of the SPA architecture for websites that are not applications. Even when the development complexity is a lot higher with not many benefits for regular websites.