epic rant

https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-stat...t-1603a861d29f

Well, he's not wrong

Been thinking about that...lots of time spent on redesigns etc. on stuff that was already working. Going leaner and focusing on incremental improvements to core features (plus maybe some gambles at big new features) seems like it would yield a big advantage for a lot of companies.

As a counterpoint, the most beautiful, elegant, functional, and lauded stuff at my company was written in react. Most of the rest of it is jquery, and is a hot mess.

From the user standpoint?

From all standpoints. It's ugly, bloated, non-functional, difficult to fix, etc, etc. You name it.

I had a job working with a bunch of 20 somethings who went to LMU. LMU is a commuter college, so the kids pretty much just stay living at home. Even after college half of them were still living at home even though making good money.

The acceptable lunch topics of conversation:

1. Video games
2. Superhero movies
3. Lost
4. Souped up family cars like an $80k Audi coupe
5. HD stuff (HD was just going mainstream)

I swear those are the only things those guys ever talked about. They were nice guys but so boring.

Yep - all signs to me point to skip the React train. I don't like the amount of boilerplate. I don't like the templates with raw html in the middle of JS. It seems pretty far from Web Components, which is what I think all the higher-level data-binding frameworks will eventually gravitate to.

I also am very leary of server-side rendering and data-model syncing, which is one of the big selling points. I want my back end and front end independent, not "stuck" each other for life. That way when react dies we can just slap a new front end on the API, instead of having to start all over again.

But I could be spectacularly wrong.

Heh, the ugly one was the jquery one. The react thing is really pretty nice. And pretty easy to work on. They use redux also which is a little rough to wrap your head around but kind of an interesting idea.

React does not actually have a lot of boilerplate... redux seems to. But getting a react app off the ground is essentially zero boilerplate.

The template directly in code stuff is weird. But
a) you get used to it
b) you don't actually have to use it - you can do it the awkward way.

BTW as a complete JS noob I replaced a plain html with django backend thing into a react/api thing in about 4 hours of work, starting from scratch. (Well, I mean, I got to reuse the backend stuff, but the frontend was all from scratch)

Do people use React w/o Redux or something like it? I figured that just came along with it most of the time. Like node/express.

There's absolutely no requirement to use redux. I don't have any idea if it's "usually" used with redux or not. I did that first app without redux, and only learned redux because we were using it at work.

The JS community sort of brought it on themselves. For a short time, the RoR and JS cool kids tried to bring a bucket load of frameworks to the Clojure and ClojureScript world, but it was rebuffed with a yawn or well, wtf, no. I suspect the same will happen in the Go community, since they appear more insular and geek proud than the Clojure world.

congrats to javascript for finally getting a ** function!

https://developers.slashdot.org/stor...guage-released

so, the first thing at my new job is 2 weeks of c# training. its pretty much exactly like going back to bootcamp (except the money transfer is reversed). its pretty interesting actually.

anyway, the subject matter so far has mostly consisted of linq expressions, lazy evaluation, lambdas, anonymous functions. I think its kinda funny that we didnt touch on anything like this at my bootcamp, nor did I see it in any online tutorials, or any beginner books, or even remember seeing it in any curriculum summaries. yet it was the first thing the instructor taught us. I guess he figured we hadnt been exposed to it so it was necessary to go into right away and in depth.

I'm currious if any other beginners were taught this stuff early on.

What javascript desperately needs: a standard library

What it gets: a power operator and some kind of array search improvement

Your company is training you for two weeks? You aren't pushing code or anything?

My uh... "internship" was in C#. I was told "this is Visual Studio. Ever use it?" Nope.

"Okay, our first order of business is create the admin page. I have a database here, but you need to figure out how to connect to it and make sure the client can interact with it and see everything."

...500 LOC later.

"That looks horrible. Have you ever heard of CSS?" well... I have poor eyesight, sorry.

"Why can't the client log in?" I don't know how?

:/

...1000 LOC later

"Have you heard of a repeater?" No, why didn't I learn about this a week ago?

erases 800 LOC and creates a repeater.... 500 LOC later.

"WTF, that works, but looks like ****. LOL, it's okay, we aren't designers and it works. Let's work on the home page. What do you think of this idea?" IDK, I'm just a programmer and don't do designs, sry.

right this way, sir....

http://ramdajs.com/0.21.0/index.html

Ya just training. No code pushing.

Oh look, that's... not a standard library

just pretend

If everyone else pretends, and it comes with (more or less) all javascript interpreters, then it'll be fine. Otherwise, no.

(That's assuming it's even complete enough, I didn't really look)

Well it's got an add function!

Am I misreading the docs or does add() only take two parameters? Why can't it lazily evaluate an infinite stream like every other functional programming language?

It's probably not really necessary because you can just say "foo.reduce(add)" right?