Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglover | Hacker News Reader

I built a full-stack JS framework [1] that I thought would be a hit. As best as I can tell, because it lacks the complexity/word salad of existing solutions, it's mostly been ignored despite being (imo) an elegant solution to a long-standing problem.

[1] https://cheatcode.co/joystick

View on HN

This is an inviting read, and I think would resonate with many. I avoid javascript for the brittle timesuck it can become maintianing the past while shaking one's fist at other legacy systems. I've never known this to be a problem because I avoid systems that do this to my time, unless it's absolutely unavoidable. It makes me much more productive to use tools that work, and continue to work, so I spend more time with problems than rolling a temple to my own veneration. It might work for others, and it doesn't make it right, it might not work for me, and that doesn't make it wrong.

It's OK not to be for everyone, but your people will find whoever you are being.

Maybe try it as the content for your landing page. Lots of one liners that resonate.

Thanks for the feedback/tips, I'll give it a shot.

My comment was in relation to the philosophy page of your framework. I thought I had included it.

https://docs.cheatcode.co/joystick/philosophy

I hope you do, I'm sure there would be at least an audience of 1000 true fans for this.

Its one of the only javascript frameworks that stood out to me because of that page having a real enough human story.

Feels similar to the individual developer starting a project wondering if any framework is looking out for them to stay productive :)

I generally avoid the javascript brittle maintenance time-sinks but using it is a reality and knowing that there's simple frameworks that can absorb and handle complexity are valid.

I think not using common license like GPL, BSD or MIT make people think twice before even trying the framework.

The license is pretty straightforward and fills in the gaps where the others fail to protect OSS creators (leading to headaches like w/ Redis). Perhaps it's too idealistic to think people will just read it and see if it matches their needs?

no, i've already spent the necessary hours of debating to what extent the agpl3 is compatible with cc-by-sa 4, i don't want to invest those hours again in a license that's used by only one project and, if history is any guide, probably contains important mistakes in how it's written and will need to be redrafted after those mistakes are noticed. i don't have a legal department

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not risking my company's legal liability with my ability to comprehend a legal document.

It's a stretch to call it a legal document (technically, yes, but it's written so that anyone can understand it). I wrote it myself in plain english [1].

[1] https://saucr.org/example

Assuming the project/tool was interesting and that was a concern, why not just forward it to your legal department (or manager) to get clarification on if it's an option?

And then you have to wait a month and more and they log time on your project budget. Legal department takes that kind of stuff seriously and don't give off the cuff opinions. So now your project is severely delayed you are under budget and the only thing you got from it is that you maybe gets permission to use a new library.

Ooooor... you can just pick one of hundreds of options with a more commonly used licenses that have already been approved by them many years ago.

This is not realistic. You’re asking new users to go out on a limb to even figure out if they can work with your stuff. the casual “hey send an email to legal” suggestion just cost your potential collaborators weeks of time and thousands of dollars before they can even evaluate the product itself

Because another similar project uses a standard license and doesn't require this sort of friction.

What's the long-standing problem and what's the idea behind an elegant solution?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com