hnnsj

Fully agree on the office hours aspect of it, but not necessarily on the "you can't get your best work done by someone else's specification" aspect. Either I'm missing some point, or this sounds rather egocentric to me. What is "good work"? Beautiful code? Difficult code? Or is it code that is actually of utility? I'd argue the third. If your code isn't doing anyone else any good (and hopefully enough people to make it a viable business and thus "work". And if your code is supposed to help anyone else, you have to build it to someone else's specifications, implicitly or explicitly.

You're not alone. I, and everyone at work except perhaps our CEO, get probably 30 hours of focused programming done, with the caveat that probably around 75% of that programming is done in pairs. Which still feels like very productive programming most of the time. We do this by using the pomodoro technique and TDD (although I'm sure there are lots of other ways, and that it's mostly a combination of company philosophy and a fitting business model and product).

I'm pretty sure the point made wasn't that the west benefits from the instability in that region, but that western policies have caused, or at least made worse, that instability. Which one may or may not agree with, but I think one should address the actual argument being made.

What perhaps boggles my mind the most about this is how many seem to freak out about the fact that there's "Javascript in the render function", but they are happy to write their markup in some templating language (especially if it's server-side).

Even disregarding the discussion of which concerns exactly are supposed to be separated and why, this seems to be perfectly inconsistent to me. It's as if their rule is "there should never be markup in a .js file or <script> tag", but other logic is perfectly fine, as long as the templating language is not JS. Or maybe I'm missing something they're saying.

I don't disagree with the statement about the importance of experience.

But I don't see that that point is relevant here. Here is someone who claims to have gained that experience and learned from it, and now at least gives the impression of aiming to share that knowledge. But that's not what he's doing. He's completely ignoring the fact that there have been many, many responses to the issue he's raising, and maybe he has some good refutation of those responses based on his experience and wisdom, but in that case he does not share it. It just comes off as arrogant and polemic in my opinion.

So, yes, experience takes time and is perhaps sometimes the best possible way to learn. But given that you claim to have that experience and therefore some wisdom that is relevant, then it shouldn't take three years to state that. If that is your goal.

And if it is literally impossible to formulate the experience and wisdom that you do have into something that can be communicated and taught, yes, then of course every future generation is bound to repeat the same mistakes. How could they not?

How many years do you need to come up with a counter-argument, or adress the issues claimed for the alternatives (by the React authors and community)? Three years might not be old for a technology, but it seems like a lot of time to actually respond and flesh out this argument. If that really was the author's interest.

I don't want to sound like a douchebag, but isn't the post basically saying that short-term gratification and procrastination feels nicer, so that's what he focused on? Not that I am any better, but that's not something I'm proud of.