I have tremendous respect for both you and Thomas and I'm sorry if the anything in my post came off as disrespectful. My point in saying that his "job" was writing JavaScript frameworks (which I have since updated to better characterize his relationship to them) was not that there was anything untoward going on. My point is simply that he is comfortable making the tweaks and modifications necessary to wield the power of multiple disparate libraries. Quite simply, he is a JavaScript hacker of the first order and is more comfortable taking on that job himself than at least 80% of JavaScript developers out there.
I felt like I had to write this post when I read this:
A whopping 100% of sites or apps using these libraries don’t use all the features they provide.
I have been talking to many, many developers who started with a "simple" app that became very popular and soon exceeded its original scope. To deal with this increase in complexity, they start building many of the features not available in microframeworks, but that come standard with so-called "monolithic" frameworks. My point is that many people need that level of sophistication, but there is a widespread misconception that, for whatever reason, picking a "monolithic" tool is never the right choice.
The suggestion that "You don't need all that code all the time" is not the problem. The insinuation in the JS community seems to be "You never need all that code," which I believe to be false.
Again, no outrage on my part. I just think that we need to address the reality of how modern web apps are built.
Hi Tom, it's hard to believe your snarky-sounding italics were intended innocently when you also had such lines as "Mr. Fuchs has apparently never heard of dependency hell." That is clearly meant as a personal jab, one way or another.
That said, it's true what you wrote, that lots of apps grow bigger and need more functionality as they grow. But "need more" is not the same as "use 100% of a library," so that doesn't really refute Thomas' original argument.
You're reacting negatively to insinuations and attitudes that, as far as I can tell, don't exist on a broad scale at all. Most people you meet in the JS community use frameworks and are clearly not anti-framework. It seems to me (based on the tweets from you and @wycats) that you think this whole thing is about Sproutcore. It's not.
Thomas wasn't "insinuating" anything about Sproutcore any more than he was "insinuating" anything about Prototype.js, another monolithic framework.
Comments
Hi Amy,
I have tremendous respect for both you and Thomas and I'm sorry if the anything in my post came off as disrespectful. My point in saying that his "job" was writing JavaScript frameworks (which I have since updated to better characterize his relationship to them) was not that there was anything untoward going on. My point is simply that he is comfortable making the tweaks and modifications necessary to wield the power of multiple disparate libraries. Quite simply, he is a JavaScript hacker of the first order and is more comfortable taking on that job himself than at least 80% of JavaScript developers out there.
I felt like I had to write this post when I read this:
A whopping 100% of sites or apps using these libraries don’t use all the features they provide.
I have been talking to many, many developers who started with a "simple" app that became very popular and soon exceeded its original scope. To deal with this increase in complexity, they start building many of the features not available in microframeworks, but that come standard with so-called "monolithic" frameworks. My point is that many people need that level of sophistication, but there is a widespread misconception that, for whatever reason, picking a "monolithic" tool is never the right choice.
The suggestion that "You don't need all that code all the time" is not the problem. The insinuation in the JS community seems to be "You never need all that code," which I believe to be false.
Again, no outrage on my part. I just think that we need to address the reality of how modern web apps are built.
Hi Tom, it's hard to believe your snarky-sounding italics were intended innocently when you also had such lines as "Mr. Fuchs has apparently never heard of dependency hell." That is clearly meant as a personal jab, one way or another.
That said, it's true what you wrote, that lots of apps grow bigger and need more functionality as they grow. But "need more" is not the same as "use 100% of a library," so that doesn't really refute Thomas' original argument.
You're reacting negatively to insinuations and attitudes that, as far as I can tell, don't exist on a broad scale at all. Most people you meet in the JS community use frameworks and are clearly not anti-framework. It seems to me (based on the tweets from you and @wycats) that you think this whole thing is about Sproutcore. It's not.
Thomas wasn't "insinuating" anything about Sproutcore any more than he was "insinuating" anything about Prototype.js, another monolithic framework.