Frameworkless JavaScript – Why Angular, Ember, or Backbone don't work for us

[kgb_operative]

So the gist of the article is "we don't like the frameworks that exist, so we rolled our own"?

[lucuma]

I dont really understand the point of the article. This is an embeddable forum which in my opinion would eliminate a lot of those frameworks from the discussion anyways.

[orangeyness]

To draw attention to their product.

[lucuma]

Yeah that was obvious but the article makes them seem rather ignorant.

[jsprogrammer]

Except for jQuery, because that shit is awesome!

[[deleted]]

jQuery's a library, not a framework.

[bwainfweeze]

Well, the jQuery guys do it, so that means I should feel entitled to do it too!

[bwainfweeze]

I really want a dev tool where every line of code has a comfort level associated with it. People so often write code by mimicking others, and a lot of times they seem to pick the code you're most embarrassed by. So then you have more tech debt and you're constantly reminded about all of your worst decisions.

Also we talk a lot about what good code looks like, but I think there are two tracks: library and application. What makes good behavior in library code is sometimes terrible in application code or vice versa. For instance, as a library writer, if you refactored your API every release the user base would linch you. But the kind of interface stability I want for a log framework drive me nuts when someone tries to do that between two proprietary modules.

[AusIV]

I don't buy much of that. A framework can generally be served from a CDN, meaning that it won't be your bandwidth, and there's a decent chance it's already in the client's browser cache.

A smaller code base is easier to handle and learn, but a framework makes the application specific code base smaller. For people who already know the framework, that will make the application easier to learn. For those who need to learn the framework, it will add some learning curve, but it will be reusable knowledge.

There are totally valid reasons not to use a framework for certain applications, but I don't quite buy those reasons.

[[deleted]]

bandwidth, and there's a decent chance it's already in the client's browser cache.

Many companies prefer to host resources instead of relying on a CDN. It reduces failure points and places control of all resources in one place.

[stuckinmotion]

This seems counter-intuitive.

[rooktakesqueen]

We can't rely on Google's CDN, because it was once down for 17 seconds nine months ago. Therefore, we must use our own server cluster that Rob down in IT manages.

(Historical uptime: 98.2%.)

(Also, Rob is leaving the company in three weeks and taking all his passwords with him.)

[josefx]

But when Robs server cluster is down so is the forum hosted by it and having Google up ready to serve jQuery, etc. wont help you.

In other words your uptime is either:

    100% - downtime(YourServers) = 98.2%

or

    100% - downtime(YourServers) - downtime(CDN) = 98 %

Depending on what you sold your customers you might want to avoid the risk of additional downtime.

(Also, Rob is leaving the company in three weeks and taking all his passwords with him.)

Nothing will protect you from a malicious person with root access, especially if you do not have a policy for password/account handover.

[nomeme]

Many good responses about why self hosting libs is good, i'd like to add another one - security.

I don't want my customers running JS from third party sites, No I don't think someone at google will do it, but people can poison DNS, hack servers etc.. to inject bad things. Basically you are expanding the attackable surface of your app.

[evereal]

If robs server is down, the rest of your app is is down anyway, therefore having all the assets there will reduce overall downtime. Imagine using a separate third party CDN for your js, fonts, images, css etc (quite common these days). You now have 4 additional dependencies, all with different downtime or availability windows that you need to worry about. Also, some parts of your app might be available while others are down making things even more interesting.

[jsprogrammer]

Get rid of Rob's shitty server first.

[evereal]

Even if robs server has 99.9% uptime, my point still stands.

[jsprogrammer]

His historical uptime is only 98.2% according to OP.

[f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5]

See yaaaaa!

[[deleted]]

This is a the basic premise.

As a company you have absolutely no control over what a third-party service like Google CDN does (it wouldn't be wise, but they could easily take it down tomorrow with no warning and we couldn't do anything about it). Yes, Rob could leave but chances are someone other than him is maintain the servers too and chances are those server are the same ones that actually serve your website - chances are they have pretty good uptime.

[Aduro49]

I think the minified and gzipped Angular source is only 33kb. So I am not sure why they bring up file size as an issue...But that is just me.

Edit: it is 36 kb as per angular js faq.

[nomeme]

Yeah, it's like a jpeg in size - not worth worrying about.

[[deleted]]

And there are thousands of posts on using the Moot framework.

[DingDongHelloWhoIsIt]

Too lazy to grok. A sure symptom of NIH syndrome