Hacker News Reader

Comment by timepiece | Hacker News Reader

You guys have to convince us first that mixing content+structure/presentation/logic is the best way to go forward in web development for the following reasons 1,2,3 ..etc.

I'm all for progress and challenging/questioning previous norms or traditions. I hate dogma and dogmatic people like the next guy but I need first to see improvement in the new thing before going adopting it.

What I see now frankly is the opposite of progress. I see people advocating for dispensing of "separation pf concerns" & "progressive enhancement" in the name of "progress" and "modernization" but in reality it's just a lame excuse to regress to a state of affairs that we guys fought too hard to combat it and bring awareness to the community of its pitfalls and shortcomings.

View on HN

>You guys have to convince us first that mixing content+structure/presentation/logic is the best way to go forward in web development for the following reasons 1,2,3 ..etc.

There are a million articles and talks that provide exactly this. If you don't find them convincing that's fine, but don't act like no one is providing them.

> I see people advocating for dispensing of "separation pf concerns" & "progressive enhancement" in the name of "progress" and "modernization"

If that's what you see then you're looking in some weird places. The drivers behind React aren't just vague ideas like "modernization", they're the real-world benefits people are seeing when developing and using these new ideas. You're doing a disservice to everyone by fabricating the reasons behind these ideas just because you don't like them.

>in reality it's just a lame excuse to regress to a state of affairs that we guys fought too hard to combat it

This really just seems like a stodgy "get off my lawn, kids!" approach, which is at odds with your "I hate dogma" statements. Do you honestly believe that people are pushing in this direction solely as an excuse to regress things and make it worse? Even if you think that it is "regressing" things, you can't possibly be so conservative and entrenched as to actually believe that is people's goal, can you?

There are a million articles and talks that provide exactly this. If you don't find them convincing that's fine, but don't act like no one is providing them.

If you have been asked what's the most important convincing reason to switch to React, what would be your answer?

Please no mention of web apps vs web docs. We're already established that.

- It has been all about progress and modernization all the time. Progress in terms of productivity gains and speed was the motivation behind dropping jQuery centered architecture and going for an MVC framework instead and it's what's motivating the spawning of these frameworks as well. I don't know why this point is contentious one for you.

Do you honestly believe that people are pushing in this direction solely as an excuse to regress things and make it worse?

I didn't say that and I don't believe that they're intentionally pushing in this way to harm the industry and the community but I do believe that , while in the midst of chasing the latest trendy object, they won't realize that they're giving up very valuable stuff that benefited the industry for a long time.

You are already doing that in a normal template. Let us say you are building a shopping cart.

The template will contain logic like an iteration over what has currently been put in the basket. And maybe some condition that if the basket is empty you should show a friendly string instead. Then you have some additional logic in a js file that will collapse the list of items if the user does not want to see everything. This is usually done by using a id/class or html element to grab on to.

The idea behind React is that you put all possible states and ways the view can render in a component. You still would (generally) not have actual logic in it; like grabbing data from the server or calculating stuff.

It is different yes but I think it is a neat idea. We will have to see if it is a viable path forward but I think this "rethinking best practices" is really good and has already influenced the rest of the frameworks quite a lot.

The main difference is that the logic in template files is the guest here while the markup is the host. We're used to include presentation info in <style> tags and code in <script> tags. So, it is not really a great deal of change to include template language within our content even though I still prefer logic-less or minimal logic template languages over full blown ones to avoid turning web pages into a whole mess.

But the problem with React is they are not being honest with marketing their technology. They claim that their approach to blending everything together as "separation of concerns " and some of their evangelists had even the nerve to claim that their approach is the only true way to best practices and that we have been doing it wrong all this time. So, it turned from product evangelism to pure propaganda for them.

If they were forthcoming about it from the get go "Hey guys, we know that violates SoC but you guys we'll make up in terms of productivity gains and speed what you will give up in maintenance and readability" but instead they keep pushing their propaganda and people seem to eat it up.

It is still mixing presentation with logic if you use a template file. So why do you think it is alright to violate SoC in that case?

They have been very detailed with what you get with React and their first presentation was even called "Rethinking best practices".

It does not violate separation of concerns. For me it is the opposite and you actually have real separation of concerns instead of separation of technologies. And even if my project is pretty young it feels like it will be easier to maintain.

How often don't you have DOM manipulation (hiding or showing a div) in the same Javascript file as some actual logic. How is that separated concerns?

It is still mixing presentation with logic if you use a template file. So why do you think it is alright to violate SoC in that case?

I am not puritan or dogmatic. That's what I have been trying to convey here. I'm pragmatic to the core but I am no propagandist.

If I was asked if template languages violate SoC, I would not hesitate to reply "SURE" but I'm keeping to a minimum and I'm using logic-less flavors instead.

But reinterpreting SoC as SoT and trying to evade admitting that you guys at fault is not really something to commend you on. Too much revisionism and propaganda for my taste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com