skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think frameworks and tools are the problem. I have dealt with the same frustrations about these huge tool-chains but I've always seen it all boil down to one key point: the problem is not the tools- it is not choosing the right tools for the project at hand. Then you get websites and apps that really bloat up because of the overkill or poor choices.

There's the whole side issue of progressive enhancement and/or making a non-JS version of a site, but I feel like those ideals are now dead- whether it's due to it being unfeasible, unaffordable, or something else.
Access to their slack community, mostly, and opportunities for other gifts/swag at higher levels.
What is the argument here?

You wrote a POC of unmaintainable code, and then some junior web devs butchered your project because it was undocumented and "understandable" to you only.

Get off your high horse.

If I was your boss I would be asking why you didn't speak up earlier, and why you didn't document your work better.
That better marketing is supposed to be the open source movement. It is debatable whether that has achieved the desired effect or not. It really depends on what the desired effect is.

Also, the FSF does not really "compromise". If you ask them, "hey can you accept just a liiiiitle bit of non-free software", they'll say "no". A compromise can be disastrous to the FSF, in their view, akin to accepting a liiiiitle slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
I like how you put "you could theoretically build a car from scratch". As someone who writes about and uses React daily, and have written things from scratch before, that strikes me as a really good way of explaining the utility of frameworks to newcomers.

While most apps with any complexity will end up using some sort of framework, there is no rule which says it has to be an existing one. In my experience, a lot of the more involved projects I've worked on have used their own custom framework (as opposed to React, Angular, etc.) The upshot of this is that it is certainly possible to build something worth talking about without using one of the popular frameworks.
Multiple mistakes in your comment:

It is not possible to be making things that nobody can afford to buy. This is because consuming or otherwise using something that already exists has no real cost. This is Say's Law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law ).

And Henry Ford paid his workers a high wage because he tried a low wage and had massive, business-crippling problems with employee turnover. Working on an assembly line is hell. One minute of analysis will show that it can never be more profitable to a company to sell product to its own paid workers than to just not make the product in the first place.
Your comments reflect my feelings at the time. Trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Angular had (and still has) some really useful features and so do many other frameworks/libraries. However, it's the combinatorial complexity of having a dozen of them at the same time, each with their own DSL, coding conventions, community (or lack of it), that makes it overkill.

By the way, as the nature of these messaging apps is mostly in async messaging, it proved quite hard to unit-test.
it's interesting reading the hunger vs. no hunger debate. Personally I can't imagine losing weight without feeling hungry. Of course not constantly, of course not to the point of crashing, but you have to moderate the feeling. For some people it can pass in about a week, and you adjust to just eating less, and you hopefully stop feeling hungry. But I think almost everyone goes through at least an adjustment period.
So what are you gonna do? Move to another CAD package? Take a look at the reasonably large number of CAD packages listed on Wikioedua here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_computer-aided...

Virtually all of them are proprietary. They are too expensive to move away from, and every one of them has flaws that firms workaround and build there workflows on. Retraining, proprietary file formats and the disruption of migrating an essential part of most businesses is prohibitive.

Frankly, IMO the CAD marketplace is an example of how closed source really bites an industry. Funnily enough, most engineers - who would never accept inaccurate tolerances on items like screws or bolts - seem to accept this is the way it is and despite the stories we read here let the situation continue.

I'm frankly amazed there aren't more failures in infrastructure from bugs in CAD software. That's more a testament to the fact that engineers are engineers though - when they realise there are problems, they dig in, figure out where the problem is and find a solution, and in the case of CAD software I really think they build or design their way around the problems.

Overall, CAD software is, despite all the flaws of being coded source, still pretty amazing and vendors do fix issues eventually. We can do so many more things in society because of it, but as we evolve as a society it becomes apparent there are limitations. Eventually CAD software vendors will be disrupted, but we're a long way from that point right now!
Ok, we don't need frameworks, however what should we use in order to build complex UI applications? Own solutions? And know imagine that in every project you build your own skeleton and architecture...
Hilarious.

You are the only person working on the project and you are patting yourself on the back for writing "maintainable" code.

Bring 50 more people into the project and then lets talk.
- shows an example using mutation observer API and fails to mention it only works on IE 11+

- follows the widely accepted format of "rant about some popular framework/library/language by mimicking a tiny portion of it"

- uses shock factor to get the reader's attention

> React, Virtual DOM, Webpack, TypeScript, JSX…
HOLD ON! Let’s pause for a second here and think.

YES, you don't always need a framework/library BUT if you want to build something maintainable & scalable, it's better to opt for battle tested approaches (which is especially true when it comes to the web, having browser quirks)
I don't think we can say that for sure. For one example, there was the Skype update that removed most peer-to-peer features and added interception abilities.
I can relate to your experience but you, just as me, seem not to be a typical front-end developer - the "web-boys" (a term which probably got you the down-votes) on the other hand are. If one asks them why they do things the way they do them, they usually have a coherent answer and are happy to explain it.

As someone else pointed out in this thread, a great advantage of established frameworks is that they provide a coding standard for a team. People who do this stuff every day can easily follow the standard, understand the flow and be very productive. They did invest lots of time to learn about all those tools and libraries and probably had an overall productivity gain compared to writing native JS.

If you don't really enjoy front-end development, and your comment reads like you don't, get on your high horse and join me for a ride while the "web-boys" make our hacked UIs usable for end-users and maintainable for the next "web-boys" who have to hack on it. When we get back we'll probably be very grateful for a great UI(X). ;)
"I feel like people who say "just use the dom" don't actually have enough experience to know why that is such a bad idea."

"You people really are kidding yourselves. I feel bad for whoever is paying your salaries."

"Honestly, it just sounds like you are bad at managing your own software projects"

"I'm really glad I don't have to work with people who think like this."

"Both are signs of inexperience."

"I guess I won't be hiring you then."

------

If your coding skills are as big as your mouth you must be a kind of coding god.
To begin, React isn't a framework. It’s a tool. Would you compare a table saw to a workshop? That doesn’t make sense and neither does comparing React to a framework—especially if you’re saying you don’t need one.

Furthermore, using a virtual DOM is not the purpose of React. Virtual DOM is merely a part of how React works. People don't buy cars to get an engine. They buy cars to get around places. People don't use React to get a virtual DOM engine. People use React to make building and maintaining apps easier.

Let’s say you decide you’re smarter than everyone who worked on React or some other library, and you can build your app without them. Great, if you’re building a small app this is probably just fine. Scale your app up, however, and you’re going to end up with a framework anyway. The only difference is that it will be your own framework, and chances are it will be difficult to understand, hard to maintain, and full of bugs, and you may even be stuck with it because of how much it would cost to change.

Using libraries, or even frameworks, is how you leverage the collective intelligence of dozen, hundreds, or even thousands of very smart minds (a few of whom might even be smarter than you). Especially proven ones with many successful projects using them.

You’re welcome to give this up to be a cowboy, but me: I’ve been there, thought I was that smart, and realized how much better off I am by not trying to reinvent the wheel every time.

The rest of the article mentions other points which don’t seem particularly related to framework decisions to me at all, so I’ll let them be.
Its ROI. For any new company starting off, they will quickly realize that all non-js agents are either bots or very low-powered machines. With many new companies, who base their entire existence on the web and customers' ability to access it, these two groups are not their target audience so why bother making a JS free, static site when you don't need those customers' business?

On the flip side, government sites are (or at least should be) developed with a high degree of accessibility in mind due to laws that typically prevent anything less. Their reach is much higher and their audience is potentially every citizen in their jurisdiction.
But the solution was to come up with something better, not something worse.
You shouldn't be serving 500k images to mobile users.
I mean sure, things have bugs, right? I get that.

Sometimes autocorrect messes up things I type. It's not really a bug per-se, more just a side-effect of how things like autocorrect work, right? But sometimes Chrome crashes, and that's a bug...

The OP seems to say that the bend radius thing is more of the first case than the second, and I'm wondering how true that is. I'm not really sure of the science behind it (maybe it's an impossible constraints problem).
I see. What would be a mechanism? Upvotes by the paid users? Thanks for feedback.
There is plenty of Oxygen to handle a single lift. Just not a rapid full set at near max weight. The specific transition point varies based on a wide range of factors,mbit simply waiting between each individual lift is enough to stay aerobic.
Are you are replying to yourself? You are quoting yourself.
This looks like a great blueprint to spend way too much time writing an app that is un-maintainable and only works in a few browsers.
I apologize for not adressing your concerns with the post earlier, I've just added an update to the bottom of the post with some replies to some comments I've read.

Please keep in mind that my intent is not to mock you or your framework of choice. My goal with this post is to try to inspire you to try building something with the native DOM and Web API and see for yourself. Some may enjoy it, others may not. And if you feel comfortable with your current way of building your web applications with a framework, that's completely fine.

Also, please keep in mind that I cannot address every use-case in a single post. As much as I'd like to, that's going to take way too much time.
مشاهدة قناة ست البيت للطبخ بث مباشر أون لاين بدون تقطيع
Why was it rewritten, because it was difficult to maintain? It sounds like whomsoever rewrote it failed to make it more maintainable, then I would say that is a failure on the part of the person than on the concept of a framework.
There are cases where some companies have the business justification to work on writing their own frameworks, like with Facebook. They can use up human resources to really focus on latency at the cost of other metrics.

Other companies juggle their priorities differently, and would probably not want to focus their efforts on replacing React, which has a small API, constantly-updated documentation, a team that responds to issues, and widespread attention and thus lots of discourse. I also think the React layer abstracts away complexity, trading total lines of code for cognitive easiness. Some teams have the business justification for doing things their way -- but I think most don't.
That's funny. But at least you might not need the whole framework, just a part of it. And that part you'll end up writing youself. Why not? You'll understand javascript better. Most developers aren't able to write a single line without a framework.
I profit from people's lack of technical expertise every day, and I'm proud of it.

People come to me because they acknowledge that they don't understand the problems they are faced with, and I provide maintainable solutions that work for years after the contract has been completed.

How?

I choose a widely adopted framework that is suited to the task and follow the best practices of the community that developed it.

That way when I leave people don't say my app is "A spaghetti be-spoke js app" but instead "Its an angular/ember/react-redux app." See the difference?

One is the opinions of a single developer (or small team), the other is the culmination of hundreds of open source developers working together to solve common problems in a maintainable and performant way.
The (beta) protocol was pretty well documented at the time and it took relatively little time to implement the iOS client. 2000 lines of code is relatively easy to understand, even without someone explaining what's going on.

The project wasn't a failure at all. Currently being used in a production setting for communication in and between hospitals and medical labs.
> Take that away and you aren't left with anything that wasn't already done long ago

And that is exactly my point. There are very interesting ideas in digital currencies/digital cash that have no representation in Bitcoin or at all.

By using Bitcoin, like using your bank's website, you still need an Internet connection to use your currency digitally.

However, it's possible to create a digital currency that doesn't have to be plugged-in to a network to operate. Being able to send an e-mail with a cash value integrated in its data is something that hasn't been done long ago, or even yet today.

Even better, some digital currencies could (conceptually) be sent in a paper letter as cash.

Whether the value is created algorithmically or by bankers is a separate, economic debate, and really less interesting, in my opinion, than the technology itself.
No, a 'font' is a tool for the mechanical representation of text. First with wood/metal, then with later technologies. Hand drawn letters are in scripts or styles. I think I've been too charitable with my words.
You can't connect to the bssid with an iPhone?
A home business that his HIPAA compliant?
You are seriously scaring the shit out of me. I'd be more scared, only my Uncle was in charge of a standards body in a certain nuclear research organisation several decades ago and a few of his old war stories would make your hair turn white.

Thankfully when I did work for that same organisation they had completely changed their culture, and things were considerably better, but still I suspect that if you explore the bush around the facility (which I doubt the police would allow...) you might see some unusual things.
Most plastic bags are polyethylene, and new ones in particular may contain small traces of ethylene, which has a pleasant fruity smell.
Coming from a perspective of competitive multiplayer game networking, that seems insane. You can't trust the client. An ideal stock exchange, I'd think, would include the same sort of logic as a payment processor: blocking any orders that seem to be "not the sort of order this client would make", to prevent e.g. orders being executed by people who have illegitimately gained access to the account.

Of course, these type of algorithms typically take far more than microseconds to run—but that's fine, as long as they take the same time for everyone.
Usually I don't associate FPGAs and power efficiency. I know about lattice's offerings or is there something I'm missing?
THAT is truly disappointing. Of all the new features, async/await is possibly the most critical for improving readability of code.

It's even more of a step forward than Promises was.
Maybe Julius Caesar was just two women taped together in a Roman Emperor suit?
I am very good at what I do.

I have had lots of these conversations with other people who think they are good at what they do.

This line of thinking kills companies, because the prototyper they hired for their "MVP" doesn't like frameworks. A year later he/she is gone and I'm rebuilding their app as an angular app.

You don't have to agree with me, but I am right. Millions of of dollars in contracts and a resume full of happy returning clients says so.
They've really got the surveillance state thing down to a science there, if they're doing things like that. In North America, where there are cameras, they tend to only look at your speed at a specific moment.
I think you're touching on exactly the problem: a 'spaghetti be-spoke' js app. Can a JS app be anything but? Javascript is a language for the view layer. It's supposed to be the minimal shim on top of LAMP or Rails or whatever, to bridge the gap between static HTML and dynamic movement. It was never supposed to run the entire app!
That is the maximum number of cars that can pass a given point in 2 seconds; it does not mean that a road operating at peak capacity can reach that number.

You also have to take into account cars merging onto the road you are on. Imagine a road acting at peak efficiency, with a car passing every 2 seconds. Now merge in more cars. They are going to push back every car behind by that same 2 seconds.

You can read the section on 'merging' in the link above to read more details.
People get fat not because they eat too much. But because they eat junk food. That's it. The amount of calories is irrelavant here.

If you want to be a good shape, eat fruit. Without GMO and hemicals. That's simple. Yet most people go to McDonalds, drink Coca-Cola, eat different kinds of shit and wonder "What should I do to lose weight? Hmmmm, maybe I should work out more?"
Digital cash doesn't have a scratch-off layer. It has information associated with its minting and mechanisms to be used in spending and transactions.

> ... perfectly happy to use state endorsed currencies.

Unless what you are looking for is a digital currency.

Being able to send $5,000 cash in the form of information is a separate issue from who controls the money supply. If someone wants to exchange that amount without having access to a distributed network of computers, is that more centralized?

What I'm saying is, I would be happy to use an information based currency, even if it means holding a key with a central authority, if it means being able to make free, anonymous transactions easily with a completely digital, offline currency.

That is not what Bitcoin provides. And it isn't possible to e-mail paper bills, either.
just the online help for now, hit the question icon in the top right. let me know what you'd like to see in a user guide :)
Could not they just use their superior manufacturing capability to make e.g. 24 core arm that use less power then competition ? If not for them, it will atleast bite the market share from competitor. This is quite analogous to "Nokia should have embraced android much ago."
vanilla-js.com
And also all the other resources the university library offers. Especially in summer months, uni libraries are amazing and massively under-used resources. Working/learning is a public library is usually a drag, but uni libraries are awesome.

I used to live a couple blocks from a uni library, and I practically lived there. In the summers I drove straight there from work, got lost in the stacks learning about random things, and only left when it closed.

Fortunately that library was completely free to the public, but if it weren't I would have happily paid $100/mo during the summer months for access (Probably saved that much just in utilities anyways.)
Way to avoid adding any more the conversation.
The problem is two-fold. The average users doesn't care about security and probably never will.

Many developers like to hack software together. To make it secure requires discipline and more time and knowledge when developing it. Most businesses don't really care about this. They just want it finished fast.

The only way it will change is if the government starts fining companies for software that has a crazy amount of bugs or requiring developers to be certified.

I honestly don't think many developers even have the ability to write software without the obvious bugs we see popping up today. For sure we would see less companies outsourcing to countries like India.
Quite a few diseases vary with season of birht if you do not supplement http://vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=3225
Shamelessly stolen from the comments at http://anandtech.com/show/10288/intel-broxton-sofia-smartpho...

"The short answer: margins.

The long answer: Intel could absolutely build a killer smartphone SoC on the 14nm process. However it would need to be Core based; the Atom CPU line isn't performant enough. They may need to go back to Ivy Bridge or strip down Skylake a bit to get there, but they could do it.

The issue is that smartphone SoCs have very low margins. MediaTek, Rockchip, etc are crushing the market. Atom is designed for margins, not performance. If Intel built a winning Core smartphone SoC, then they'd have to sell it for significantly lower margins than what their other Core parts sell for. And that in turn would put pressure on the rest of their chip stack; why should an OEM pay $250 for Core-M when you could get a similar smartphone SoC for $30?

For what it's worth Apple faces a similar challenge. But being vertically integrated means they don't have to share with others, and the total profit off of iPhones/iPads can offset the higher costs involved in developing and fabbing the A-series SoCs. However Intel doesn't have that luxury, and Asus would never let Intel have all of the profit.

Smartphone SoCs are a race to the bottom. And Intel as a business has nothing to gain from taking part in that race. The winner is the guy who got badly hurt but didn't die; a Pyrrhic victory."
I was pretty disappointed with my Sea Monkeys. Can't imagine I was alone in that.
No, I'm saying the authority would provide resources to enable transactions, not an authority that controls transactions, which is actually what the distributed network of miners does in the case of Bitcoin.

In this case, the authority would provide stamps for transactions.
I've had a feeling, recently, that there should be some maxim that goes something like:

Don't put yourself in a position where the lawyers are the only ones on your side.
Miss Universe and Automatic Prediction for the Evening Gown Competition