1. 3

    I’ve never been a guy that would go in and hack like this, so it was cool to see someone doing it. And for non-techies, he did a decent job of presenting programming concepts (like the call stack, constructors).

    1. 4

      I don’t see JS ecosystem imploding under its own churn. 10 years ago we had a similar battle of frameworks where jquery ended up taking the lion’s share and prototype/mootools/dojo/yui made up the rest. Now we have angular/react dueling with a bunch of others making up the rest. Web dev is so much easier now than it was then, too. The tooling has gotten way better. Browsers have gotten faster.

      But I guess it’s easier just to shit on everything you’re not great at and say it’s dying despite the very obvious fact that it is not. And how did it lose on mobile, exactly? Almost everyone designs sites with mobile-friendly UI, and many do it mobile-first/responsive.

      Not to mention the fact that more and more electron apps keep popping up which are js/web apps in desktop wrappers.

      But yeah, it sucks so bad, it’s unusable, and we definitely need to replace it.

      1. 5

        Web dev is so much easier now than it was then

        Building large complex apps is easier and more robust then it was, but in general web development has become far more difficult.

        10 years ago your average hack could slap together HTML4, CSS2, a bunch of jQuery plugins and JS copy pasta… FTP it to a server, call themselves a Web Developer and find plenty of work.

        Now you need to be on the ball with a plethora of rapidly evolving and complex frameworks, tooling (tooling and more tooling) and “best practice”.

        And that’s just the front end, the complexity of back end code and systems administration/dev ops has exploded from LAMPs heyday and the VB/IIS monstrosities that plagued corporate networks.

        There are beautiful simple stacks available now (eg choo on the front and flask on the back)… but you wont find much work building in that.

        1. 1

          Are you arguing that JS getting away from non-devs selling themselves as devs is a bad thing? You can still throw stuff together with HTML4/CSS2 and a bunch of jquery plugins. Tons of smallers companies don’t care. But that’s not really “dev” so much as throwing a bunch of premade things together. If you’re trying to get hired as a web developer, you ought to know something about developing for the web.

        2. 2

          I mean, it works because we keep adding CPU cores and RAM to our systems… but it’s a pretty unfortunate mess

          1. 2

            I’m no type really aware of the point you’re implying…is JS only succeeding because computers are fast? I didn’t think that was even remotely the case.

            1. 1

              I’m not sure what you’re saying here. JS is getting more complex because browsers are getting faster. They’re getting faster so we can have improved functionality. They’ve always done that. If you want a browser that felt like it was the end stage of the browsing world, you’re free to bust out IE6 again.

          1. 2

            I love unit testing. I’m a passionateTDDer. Few things have been as gratifying as what unit testing has given me–when done right.

            A lot of the time, recent converts to unit testing and management think that it’s a guarantee of infalliable code. The idea that 100% coverage is 100% bug free code.

            I think the follow on to falling in love with unit testing is being able to identify the right things to test. I believe what makes unit testing “good” is writing the right tests. That’s something that comes with experience but code reviews/having a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th set of eyes look at your code can really help. Even today I struggle picking the right things to test.

            1. 2

              I’ve said it before here, but it bears repeating: 100% coverage tells you nothing at all (the tests could be bad) but 90% coverage tells you that 10% definitely hasn’t been tested.

            1. 1

              Kudos to Facebook (and Wordpress)!

              1. 15

                I don’t understand how this is a good thing; they are moving from a license that has a bad patent protection clause to a license that has no patent protection clause.

                1. 12

                  this comment on HN explains it

                  Basically, if you sell or license a product that requires a patent to work, courts have generally held that you grant an implied patent license for any patents that the product might require. If you explicitly reference patents within the license, however, then whatever terms you explicitly write into the license supersede this implied patent license. BSD+patents (and Apache 2) have explicit patent language; paradoxically, this makes them more restrictive than licenses like MIT, BSD, or GPL that don’t mention patents at all.

                  1. 10

                    this makes them more restrictive than licenses like MIT, BSD, or GPL that don’t mention patents at all.

                    This is incorrect; the GPL has an explicit patent grant.

                    Lumping Facebook’s random one-off “let’s mash a weak unilateral explicit patent grant onto the BSD license” together with the carefully-designed Apache and GPL licenses is really weird. There’s a (very shaky) argument to be made that their one-off unilateral grant is worse than an implicit grant, but the idea that an explicit bilateral grant written by people who actually care about user freedom is the same thing is just … completely wrong.

                    1. 10

                      I suspect people are confusing GPL with GPLv2. Inexcusable, given that GPLv3 is more than 10 years old now.

                      Note: GPLv2 has no explicit patent grant, but GPLv2 does mention patents. It has a clause which makes patent-encumbered GPLv2 software undistributable.

                    2. 2

                      yeah, I see this as a generally good thing

                    3. 3

                      I am not a React developer but I think it’s a good thing because it’s the same license Angular and Vue use. There is no mention of patents in the MIT license but now going forward any problems you have concerning patents are the same problems you’d have if you chose angular or vue in the first place.

                      1. 3

                        I agree. I expected them to move to the Apache license.

                      2. 3

                        Apache foundation and Baidu also dropped React for the same reason recently.