It's not that you can't build a website without a framework, its that at the end of the day, no one cares what tools you use (in front end), it's how fast you get the job done, does it look like the mock up, and does it function.
No one cares if the site is written in vanilla JS vs. a framework except a certain segment of HN web purists.
80% agree. That is immediately true when only talking about code, but then absolutely everyone bitches about how shitty the result is (big, slow, brittle, and so on). People do care enough to complain, even non technical people.
Worse than that people who do that work also bitch about how shitty the results are too, but then continue writing garbage because that’s the best they can do.
> Worse than that people who do that work also bitch about how shitty the results are too, but then continue writing garbage because that’s the best they can do.
True, but the only solution to this is "get good". Because using vanilla JS isn't going to make them any less likely to make a foot gun.
In my experience, the most brittle projects I've worked with tend not to be component-based SPAs. Maybe not necessarily because they're SPAs, but because they're component based, which in JS world, pretty much always requires the use of ES modules.
Even if someone makes some horseshit you can iterate away from it easily because (at least in the case of Vue), it's incredibly difficult to leverage global state (and discouraged, in programming in general, but also specifically bt Vue) and everything you do is encapsulated in components.
The JS projects that give me nightmares are the ones that use globals that are defined/populated/hydrated across different JS files, so the JS files have to be loaded in a certain order, or you get undefined reference errors and the like everywhere.
All of this is sorted out for you by bundlers and frameworks. And if you're not using a framework, you almost have to be good enough to make a framework to avoid all those pitfalls yourself.
At least that's been my experience with vanilla JS vs. framework JS in enterprises.
I really think the web purist rage about it comes from the fact that these individuals have dedicated years to perfecting exactly this craft (building little frameworks for themselves) and now complete noobs can make websites that look equally as sophisticated in 5 minutes. I don't think it really has to do with practicality as they claim. (E.g. gatekeeping)
Many webpages can and should exist with as little JS as possible, but the moment UX matters more than whatever bespoke concern is causing that restriction, you start having to think about the JS as a full fledged app vs. just some scripts bringing life to HTML (or you just delegate a bunch of UI code to the server).
I think if the website is primarily for reading static content, it makes sense not to use a framework. But once you are managing forms, reactivity, and rapidly changing demands from user feedback, it stops being easy to balance between creativity/flexibility in design and robustness.
And the reality is, most web developers are just working on some version or component of an ERP, which is a reactive data driven app that changes constantly to keep up with the business it's built for.
Frameworks usually facilitate rapid iteration in such products.
But I agree, installing 40 npm packages to build a blog is silly.
> True, but the only solution to this is "get good". Because using vanilla JS isn't going to make them any less likely to make a foot gun.
That is a common misconception that only occurs in software and is exceptionally common to JS. If you want to avoid foot guns set validation criteria: lint, test automation, strong types, and so forth. Contrary to what many JS developers suggest vanity is not a solution here and even that can be automated.
I had a personal project that was this peer-to-peer file sharing utility. I wanted test automation but was not aware of a test-automation utility for the browser in a peer-to-peer environment. So, I wrote one. When I changed the project from HTTP to WS I was about to execute up to 300 tests in about 8 seconds. That was very helpful. I found that since it was fast enough I could run this test automation all the time even before manually testing in the browser.
When I was at this consultancy last year that used Vue 2.0 tiny refactors were full of risks and could take up to 2 weeks. They had no automation of any kind and it scared the shit out of me. Making heavy use of strong types due to TypeScript I was able to execute refactors several dozen times larger in about 2 hours at almost no risk in a much larger personal project.
None of that means I am awesome. It just means that by putting the proper processes in place I was allowed to be really bad and could still release hundreds of times faster at low risk. At work I had to be astonishingly stellar when tip toeing around eggshells very slowly to release anything at all. I have been doing this long enough to see the same faulty patterns repeated.
The ideal path forward has to come from somebody that understands risk analysis, can measure things, and understands compound interest. That person could be an MBA who has never programmed before. Software almost always gets this wrong and does the opposite because it likes to repeat its failures. My repeated failure is not getting out of JS sooner.
> That is a common misconception that only occurs in software and is exceptionally common to JS. If you want to avoid foot guns set validation criteria: lint, test automation, strong types, and so forth.
The thing is, a developer can do all these things and make ugly UXes. They could also do none of them and make brilliant ones.
> My repeated failure is not getting out of JS sooner.
Have to agree. You sound like a strong backend engineer who was trapped in a frontend engineers body for years.
That's why dating apps should focus on lifestyle and romance as well as matching.
Couples still could use apps to help coordinate their dates, etc. find suggestions of places to go, meet other couples for double dates, find couples events nearby etc...
Pretty sure dating apps are doing fine business wise.
Why rock the boat? It seems to me like the strategy is for the match group to buy off competitors and then slowly but surely turn these into tinder clones once they start gaining traction.
They're not. Their stock prices are cratering. Bumble just had a widely publicized, horrifically tone-deaf rebranding while trying to expand their market. There have been layoffs.
The problem is that they're losing young people, who seem to feel a lot less pressure to go meet somebody and pair off. They see the existing dating apps as having been designed for a Gen X sentiment, and that doesn't apply to them.
They're still fumbling about for a new hook. They may well find it. But for the moment I don't think it's accurate to say that they're "doing fine".
I doubt it. From my experience, anytime you try to turn human interaction into a mass market app that can appeal to all users, it inevitably turns to shit over time as it keeps getting gamed by all parties involved till it implodes from the shittyness.
Tinder was also fun and cool in the early years when it was a niche app few people knew about, but it kept getting worse and worse over time: paywalled subscriptions and features, bots, women got a lot more flaky, men got a lot more creepy leading to a feedback loop of enshitification.
It's kind of like the early days of online internet chat versus the internet of today. It was safer, cooler and more fun when only a few geeks were on it, anyone you met online was an experience not a fear, but once all and sundry moved in along with profit motives of big corporations, it became shit with ads, dark patterns, bots, trolls and weirdos everywhere.
The same thing happened to Couchsurfing. It started off as a cool, niche, geeky way to travel and meet people, and over time it turned into a dating app where dudes from Paris/Barcelona/etc are renting their couch to young travelers form North America in exchange for sex. Same with the dozens of meetup apps for "making friends and meeting new people" which inevitably devolve into unofficial dating apps for creeps and weirdos who aren't there for any friendships.
IMHO, it seems that on the mass market for-profit internet where everyone is allowed (and encouraged) to join, we just can't have nice things. To whit, the best online communities I found are now either in public places that are devoted to super niche things which don't attract trolls or big corporations to monetize, or on stuff like private torrent trackers where getting in only happens through personal referral.
> From my experience, anytime you try to turn human interaction into a mass market app that can appeal to all users, it inevitably turns to shit over time as it keeps getting gamed by all parties involved till it implodes from the shittyness.
But what I described doesn't appeal to all users. It appeals to a subset of the exact same demographic using dating apps, it just also appeals to them beyond finding their first match.
You join the app and still have to find a match (or join with your partner; admittedly, a different demographic) to access any additional features. It's not some app you hop on to find a good grocery shop for Manuka honey or booking a flight.
If the matching aspect works fine, adding additional features shouldn't reduce use of or interest in the app, unless they're coupled with an annoying UX ("Hey, we took time to add this so you must use it").
It's not an "everything" app, it's about providing additional value to the existing audience that extends beyond just matches.
I don't think we can definitely say something like that does or doesn't work until we see enough of them crop up and fail. From what I have heard, niche dating apps (or "singles apps", more appropriately[1]) do okay in localized regions.
I would bet they probably would do okay on a larger scale, just that real life dating probably is a different game from city to city and so you can't just ship the exact same experience as you might for Vancouver to Springfield
Hey! As a Odoo dev, it’s really cool to see Odoo mentioned here. I was thinking the same thing regarding its similarities. I’ve always regarded Odoo as the “batteries included” ERP framework.
Here in Australia, Odoo is finally starting to hit some strides. We’re seeing more jobs in the market requesting Odoo experience, at our work we’re onboarding more customers than we have before. All said, I’m definitely going to fire up OpenKoda and brush up on my Java :)
Odoo's quest for monetization from open source has been a bit off-putting. I stopped using it a few quarters back due to that. Community and Enterprise are becoming too disjointed.
I can't speak specifically for Odoo's quest for monetization because I'm not a user; it very well may not be a healthy one. But in general I think FOSS monetization should be celebrated. Successful open source software businesses are generally good for everyone except for closed source software businesses.
Is there something in particular that's flawed with Odoo's business?
You are correct that monetization need to celebrated in OSS software. This being said, when your open-source version is but a shadow version of the enterprise version, then you're doing something wrong. That's what op was hinting at.
I'd add if you want people to use and promote your software, you also want to make sure the documentation is usable.
Though regarding Odoo, I would say the situation is somehow better in this regard than it used to be a 5~7 years ago.
Developers livings as monks and coding away in a dark delapidated castle surviving on their 4 donated cups of coffee a month while addressing 43,000 GitHub issues a month created by enterprise users who are working on commodifying the FOSS product into their cloud solution.
I'm not sure how you are measuring "size", but I was going on features.
Though I haven't done a formal review of which features are open and closed, and the xompany doesn't appear to document it anywhere, so I may be wrong. It seems like when I have looked into it in the past mostly it is a core framework with a few open source apps and whole bucnh of closed ones and the marketing doesn't clearly state what is open and closed.
If you expect every comment on this site to be backed by a massive amount of reasearch, then you are in the wrong place. I have looked into Odoo several times, I was expressing my impressions of the product. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my initial comment.
Assuming you are apart of the team, I'm sure you know Odoo is 20 years old. So, I can't see why in time there couldn't be real competition.
OpenKoda and Odoo actually have sparked interesting questions for me about what an Open source ERP market would look like.
One conclusion I came to is as opposed to vendor lock-in as most ERP/CRM products try to enforce, it would actually be better to go the opposite direction (high compatibility with existing alternatives).
That said, have you guys considered allowing imports from Odoo into OpenKoda or other deep integrations?
In theory, I feel like you can run Odoo apps in OpenKoda, or even vice versa. The experience would be suboptimal but being split between two ERP systems is too.
We meet a lot of companies who are not happy with software solutions which are hard to modify.
It's not even about the cost, but about the limitations and poor development velocity.
These companies strive to build something innovative, they just find these closed platforms really cumbersome and slow to deliver.
When you start investing millions of dollars into a bespoke solution you really want to truly own it at some point. And this is impossible with closed and proprietary application platforms.
> It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.
> So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations
It is also possible for a person to simply contradict themselves.
What you are saying is they are equally bad outcomes.
You're also simultaneously implying that one is objectively worse than the other in every possible way.
There's no contradiction. Equally bad outcomes does not mean that they paths to those outcomes is also equal.
As a clear example, in both these cases the outcome is "death" right? I think we all know we'd rather go out in our sleep that have our intestines ripped out. Both these have equal outcomes but I'd call you a liar if you didn't have a strong preference.
You might say these don't compare. I'd say that they do. If we come to that conclusion, one of us must be misinterpreting the other.
It doesn't mean that but your analogy implies that what's important is the outcome being death either way.
That the paths may seem less or more preferable isn't actually the point of your analogy, it's that either way in the end: You die.
You also made this analogy as a counterpoint to the claim that women are the big winners on dating apps by far.
It's like if someone said smokers and non-smokers are both going to die anyways.
While that's certainly true, the implication (that it doesn't matter whether or not you smoke), is wrong.
Likewise, the implication of your analogy is wrong in my opinion.
One is clearly far worse and you have already acknowledged this.
Getting 0 matches and being inundated with matches that don't work out are in no way comparably bad outcomes on a dating app. Especially because these are -matches-, and that's the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.
> your analogy implies that what's important is the outcome being death either way.
No, the analogy means both genders are not achieving their intended and goal.
Apples and oranges are both round fruit, but we still use this as an idiom because the distinction are important. In fact, the idiom itself is about things that have surface level similarities but that details matter.
Which you're right to point out that the details matter. I'm not disagreeing with your thesis. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation. If a doctor says you should eat more fruit, they don't care if you eat apples or oranges. Basically, context. You put too much information into what was intended to be conveyed. This has been explained to you. So now if you don't understand that's on you.
And I need to reiterate. Language is imperfect. You'll always be about to find reasons to disagree or misinterpret. This whole conversation is an illustration of the imperfection.
> and [dates are] the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.
Metrics are the downfall of meritocracies. Maybe this is why you're misunderstanding. No, dates are not the goal. Dates are a step along the path to the goal. The goal is to find a partner. Not for everyone, but that's definitely the goal in the context of this thread.
Your argument is that women are not the big winners on dating apps because the outcomes for both men and women are equally bad.
That is false.
Language is imperfect but that's not the problem right now, it's that you are playing fast and loose with words and blaming it on language.
I also very intentionally said "matches" and not "dates" because again, this entire thread is based on who the big winners of dating apps are.
The goal of dating apps is to get matches. Someone else has even pointed out that these apps might more appropriately be called "matching apps", and I don't think anyone including you would disagree. (But in case you do, note that these apps have no concept of "dates"... Only matches)
I'm not misunderstanding that this is a major failing of dating apps, I'm stating that as they are currently structured, based on the current rules: women are winning in dating apps.
That is and was the topic of conversation.
It wasn't stated that women are the big winners of romance and dating in general, and that's not what this thread is about. But you are attempting to make it about that in order to get away from your original point, which is still wrong, no matter how far we depart from it.
But this doesn't answer the question asked, which is why there's an assumption that women are superior dating prospects on these apps.
You actually made the same implication again just now:
> Men typically have a hard time matching, making it hard for them to find the person they want but also making them feel desperate. On the other hand women don't have a hard time getting a match, but the quality of their matches is low.
This again implies men are not also experiencing low quality matches at similar rates. They are.
That's the point that seems to be being glossed over repeatedly in this thread.
Was the inverse take studied? (Again, to clarify, my opinion is that the ratio of good/bad interactions on dating apps in a binary ranking system is roughly the same; that means if a man and a woman get 100 matches and the woman only finds 1 suitable, so does the man)
That's why bringing quality up in a conversation about quantity ratio disparities in the dating market is meaningless.
Quantity is objectively demonstrable. Quality is not (in this case at least). Your quality complaints about a partner are the things someone else would praise about them.
That's why every single response I've made in this thread is towards comments on quality as the equalizer/silencer to quantity complaints. You are proving my point by asking this question, not sure if you realize.
It's just a red herring meant to prevent the conversation from moving in a meaningful direction, meaningful as in it helps both sexes (for example, enforcing M:F ratios in dating apps). Mostly because the meaningful direction probably doesn't benefit (or rather, have as much perceived benefit for) most women as much as a one sided approach.
That's also why the implication that "women are the big winners of dating apps" is important.
Most women don't actually want them to change in favor of both sexes, they only want their own problems addressed. Not realizing that addressing the problem for both sexes would benefit both sexes probably much much more. Yes, I'm implying people mentioning "quality" want a relative gain in value, not a net.
And that's just human nature (see the trickle down economics reference next), if men were the big winners of dating apps, it would be the same.
By focusing on quality (a problem mostly only women experience because you need quantity/volume to have quality issues in the first place), all of the benefit goes to women, and the expectation from there I guess is that the perks "trickle down" to the losing side... Right.
Does this situation sound familiar? Also this has historically proven not to be true and in reality it is not true; I feel quite comfortable saying there are far more men who feel completely disenfranchised from dating than women. Femcels exist, but I'm pretty sure there are way more incels.
Dating apps should improve upon reality... Not exacerbate the existing disparities.
Interestingly enough, the example of a meaningful solution I mentioned before (enforced M:F ratios) would directly impact quality... Imagine an app where you sign up and have to wait for your account to be activated until the ratio of males and females in your area is made even by your acceptance..
That implies that when bad actors are removed their spot is filled... By someone who is presumably not a bad actor (or this repeats until someone who isn't a POS gets in and stays). You would probably also think twice about cat fishing or sending obscene messages to people.
The thing is, in the scenario you described, I am pretty sure the person getting no job offers would trade places with the person getting offers, but the reverse is obviously not true.
Which would you rather die of dehydration in? Desert or ocean?
I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad. To be one is clearly worse than the other, though both tremendously suck. You'd at least survive longer in the ocean, even if we ignored the higher availability of food.
Because the analogy you provided implies that the outcome in either end is inevitably death, and that there are no other options.
That doesn't accurately reflect the reality though. You can adjust your standards to find a mate if you have options, if you have no options, there is literally nothing you can do. I would think "death" or "game over" is having zero moves left. Not having few favorable moves and a high chance of making an unfavorable one.
It also implies women exclusively suffer from quality issues when dating.
There are for sure just as many bad actors on the female side of dating apps as there are on the male side.
You're reading way too much into an analogy. I'm not sure how to tell you this, but analogies aren't... The full story. I don't know what you want, a book? And I hate to break it to you, the tortoise and the hare never actually raced. Nor can they talk.
If you're going to focus in on details and the generalizations that are clearly for convenience and not actual, make sure you don't do this too. Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.
I'm actually focusing on the context of the thread.
Your entire presence here is in response to the statement "Women are the big winners of dating apps"
You disagree with this and your analogy was your way of explaining your disagreement.
You could have used another analogy and I would still disagree if your conclusion was different from the person you were responding to.
> Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.
We don't both know that (in regards to number). Bad actors is a very broad term. I have pretty explicitly stated multiple times in this thread (in response to you, IIRC), that I believe the quality of interactions men and women face on dating apps is roughly the same. (To clarify this, I mean the ratio of good vs bad interactions on the app in a binary ranking system is roughly the same for men vs. women)
Yes, that includes all of the bad things you are thinking of, and including some I'm sure you have never thought of if you have never lived in a rough place.
> You're reading way too much into an analogy
You do realize that analogy was pretty much your entire original comment, right? I am directly responding to your entire point, not harping on semantics or nuance.
> I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad.
I'm supposed to respond to that without mentioning your analogy..? Because the analogy is why these things are being treated as equally bad. It's literally the entire point of your analogy.
I think generally the quality of interactions both sexes have with the opposite sex on these apps is roughly equal.
That said, even by this analogy, that would imply the 1% of the time the first person gets an interview, it is also likely a scam or a non-start 99% of the time.
So the second person is still 100x as likely to find a job as the first person. The market just happens to suck for everyone.
The podcaster is effectively asking if the AI Overview about Chromebooks coming up first on the screen above the actual answer the user is looking for is the intended direction of Google Search UX with it's new AI "improvements".
Sundar states that the user must opt into an AI Overview, but this isn't true, it basically automatically opens the overview for you.
When pressed about whether this design is a WIP or the intended goal, Sundar refuses to answer directly, for obvious reasons. It's a bad look either way. Either they did intend for this terrible UX or they clearly hurriedly pushed out a poorly designed/placed AI product to their search engine in the most prominent location possible. Which is not really a good thing when Googles most well known product is their search engine.
Either answer basically boils down to prioritizing AI over actual product quality.
It's not that you can't build a website without a framework, its that at the end of the day, no one cares what tools you use (in front end), it's how fast you get the job done, does it look like the mock up, and does it function.
No one cares if the site is written in vanilla JS vs. a framework except a certain segment of HN web purists.
reply