"This is a minimalistic JavaScript stack"
"ES6, Babel, Gulp, ESLint, React, Redux, Webpack, Immutable, Mocha, Chai, Sinon, and Flow"
brutal.
"ES6, Babel, Gulp, ESLint, React, Redux, Webpack, Immutable, Mocha, Chai, Sinon, and Flow"
brutal.
Django, gunicorn, Django Rest, Postgres (psycopg2), celery, redis, requests, nose, factory_boy, freezegun, raven
Building good applications for lots of people requires lots of stuff. Using vanilla JS to build web apps is as much fun as using vanilla python to build a backend.
the thing about the above-mentioned JS stack is that it's barely the tip of the iceberg. most of the dependencies in those python apps are built using standard libraries that simply don't exist in javascript. glazing over the whole "you're about to download a bunch of random stuff from npm that may be unmaintained or malicious" thing doesn't do a service to a junior dev.
it's also not a "modern" stack. gulp? webpack. npm? yarn. react? vue. and in another month it will be something else. what you would opt for in python, is well-established, built on libraries that are part of python's core, and maybe except for the testing stuff has been around for 100 javascript years.
I'm criticizing neither the article nor its author, simply remarking that javascript in 2016 is, in practice, completely fucking brutal.
The "guide" is minimalistic, not the stack. The point of making the guide minimalistic is to help folks feel less overwhelmed by the complexity of said stack.