Reactive and Component Frameworks for “Old Fart” Programmers | Hacker News Reader

Reactive and Component Frameworks for “Old Fart” Programmers

blog.codesolvent.com

47 pointsEdmond47 comments

> Vue is the most Javascripty of these frameworks

I'm not sure the React folks would agree to that :)

They could, but common use of React requires JSX, which means you need to transpile to use it. Not very "javascripty" in my opinion, at least compared to Vue, where you can include Vue via a script and be off and running.

> Not very "javascripty" in my opinion

Oh I agree, but the React guys are always bragging that JSX is just JavaScript.

If this page is about components then there is a major omission here: Web Components. HTML custom elements are the way to go if you want to build reusable components that work in any framework. Custom elements are easy to write and are the way to go going forward, especially when Edge switches over to Chromium.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/...

I have yet to see any success story involving web components or even a convincing article that explains what they bring to the table. I am not sure what would be the added value of a component usable by all frameworks given the variety of programming models out there.

Compatibility, longevity, reliability and simplicity are what they bring to the table.

Compatible because it is a W3 standard implemented natively by all browsers (including upcoming Edge). Even if your company has applications built using multiple frameworks (including future frameworks) you can write a component once and reuse it in all applications regardless of framework.

Longevity because this is a W3 standard. Frameworks come and go, but things built natively into the browser are here to stay.

Reliability because of Shadow DOM. You don't have to worry about id clashes, CSS classname conflicts etc when you add a component to an existing page.

Simplicity because there is no SDK or library or framework involved. It takes just a few lines of code to write a web component.

Regarding programming models, it doesn't matter. Web Components behave like built-in HTML elements, and all programming models support HTML Elements.

I have always found the big 3 JavaScript frameworks to be three versions of the same thing with slight differences. As someone who as worked in frontend for a while I am vexed in why people think the skills from one framework don't translate to the others.

I remember talking to someone about working on a project and they asked me if I had worked in Angular and I said no but I have worked in Vue and React to which I got a reply of "you should really learn angular."

Speaking as an old fart, it's not about getting one framework but not the other, it's about the concept of the framework.

For me, coming from a heavy Ruby on Rails background, I learned to just "trust the magic" with Angular (which is what I've used). Change the variable here, trust it will update in the component on the screen. Don't ask why.

The other part about frameworks that was hard for a bit was, "But what part runs on the server?" - as in, that idea that the code on the browser is generated by something on a server, and whatever that server part is actually talks to the API.

I was really hoping this was just gonna be about backbonejs

And I was missing flutter, which is more grey bearded than react.

I second this!

Component based frameworks are nothing new.

Does anyone remember Java Server Faces? I hope not.

I remember tapestry, which was heavily component based (but still compiled down to servlets).

Heck, I remember ATG Dynamo, where everything was a javabean, including all the server side components.

Where does the author get the idea that it's ok to refer to people as "Old Fart" Programmers?

OP here. I am an "Old Fart" Programmer myself, no offense intended :)

I personally prefer the more respectable Greybeard :). Although I’ve been blessed to not have my grandfather’s beard genetics... I’m currently only a Salt & Pepper Engineer

Good lord, don't worry about this BS, it's clearly fine outside the world of fringe complaint-seeking Internet loonies. Or well-attuned trolls, which I'd say is more likely in this case (in which case: well done troll, I mean look at this thread! But then HN's got some of the worst troll defenses around, so, middling victory).

Anywho, unless you're punning with "brought to bare" it should be "brought to bear", as in "bearing", as in the direction of something.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bring_to_bear

Hi, the fringe complaint-seeking internet loony here. Ageism is a real thing with consequences affecting the very livelihood of millions of people. I don't know the author's age, but people in their thirties sometimes think calling themselves old farts is cute. My bet is they'll change their minds once they hit their fifties, if they don't exit the industry by then. But dismissing all that as trolling is certainly the easy way to go.

Ah, but you're mixing industry with skill here. I can be an old-fart surfer and not be a paid surfer, for example.

Maybe the author lives in a world where there's no reason to be offended by every little thing and people can take a joke? ;)

Granted, text can't convey irony, I know.

For something to be called a joke it should require at least some creativity. Check out Don Rickles and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog for good examples of what an insult joke is. Calling someone an old fart just isn't funny. It's a worn out insult.

For something to be called a joke it should simply be intended as a joke. My goodness, do we really need to overanalyze everything? Just relax.

This is HN. A certain segment of the community here has a tendency towards over analyzing things. They can’t help it.

I come to this site primarily because I like to analyze things. And no, an attempted joke is not necessarily a joke.

You must be really fun at parties.

The parties you go to must be really fun to be at.

Would you please stop feeding this flamewar? It's off topic regardless of how provocative the title was.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It’s in the article on a different site for ducks sake. Or do you expect every submission to be reviewed and fixed according to your joke sensitivity standards?

Ok, but are you raising or lowering the signal/noise ratio by continuing to post like this here? Clearly lowering, therefore please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Probably their life experience.

IMO it's not offensive since it's not targeting anyone in particular. You are free to consider yourself an old fart or not.

Because he is referring to himself as an old fart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com