There was a very, very wise comment someone made on Angular’s issue tracker. I can’t find it now, but I’ll paraphrase:
“People will move from framework to framework to framework and complain at each one, while the ones who know what they’re doing and understand the framework they work with now are having no problems at all”. This was referring to the Angular 1 -> Angular 2 transition.
Angular 1 now supports component-based development, just like Angular 2, and React and so on. If there’s an idea that worth integrating, I’m sure it’ll filter down to frameworks that have been around for a long, long time. Trust what history and people with experience say. I’ve realize their importance is much higher than I originally thought.
I don’t understand the last two paragraphs at all. Everything in programming is about discipline or convenience; that’s how progress in languages and libraries happens, by making things more convenient or reducing the need for discipline.
I’m saying that all these progressive technologies are a matter of discipline or convenience where we should be weighing the cost and benefit, but many will treat them as the standard that everyone must comply with. They ignore the costs of using these new technologies and blindly plunge into their pitfalls and continue to justify their decision “because everyone else is doing it.”
In the current JS ecosystem, there is basically no desire for discipline.
There is however some odd bottomless stamina for switching from tool to tool, ever eager to find the one that files off the slight sharp edge that was inconvenient to the seeker.
Of course, sitting down, shutting up, and just getting fast at using the jank would save more time than continually trying to remove the jank, but hey, this is the web, and we’ve got funding to waste.