I work with pedagogies, teach, write curricula, coach, manage, mentor, consult, speak publicly, polemicize, and sometimes work as a full-stack web developer, architect, ontologist, and more.
That's what you think, which is pretty much what every other dev in the herd thinks. Why would you be any different? And it seems true to herd animals. It's those mirror neurons. Hooray for the bandwagon!
But how many websites have you actually built -- reasonably functional sites (if they are very complex then they are too big) -- using just vanilla JS/CSS/HTML? Have you ever built any? Post a link!
If the answer is no then you are just bloviating. You have no data from which to draw these conclusions. And if you say you "tried" it once or twice, well, I bet you beat your head against the wall for a long time trying to build React apps before you succeeded. I sure did. Did Webpack just magically work for you? I practically have PTSD from messing with Webpack. Why would you expect to learn anything new to you with no effort?
When you make these claims then you are forgetting just how painful learning React, various build systems, IDEs, state management, etc. was. Remember all the brouhaha when React hooks came out about how they would eliminate the "pain" of Redux? And have they, really? Or have they just replaced one pain with another? useEffect is a bear to learn. Working with the actual DOM via React is still painful. And most devs are still using hooks wrongly. Just look at all the clickbait crap on Medium telling you how to "do it right".
Building web apps isn't getting easier, it's getting more complex and difficult. Layer upon layer upon layer. Don't they call it "JavaScript hell"? But is it really hell to just write exactly the code your site needs?
So you compare the current methodology of libraries and frameworks galore -- one in which you have invested an enormous amount of painful effort to learn -- with one that you've never really tried, if you're honest. Had you invested that same effort in actually learning HTML and CSS and the "good parts" of JS, isn't it possible that you'd be able to build state-of-the-art websites (all of which, no exceptions, are built with HTML, CSS, and JS and only HTML, CSS, and JS) just as quickly and easily as using these monstrous libraries and frameworks?
And with no dependence on other devs' code (and hygiene), no concerns about version conflicts, no need for regular house cleaning and upgrading, no big bulky bandwidth-hogging downloads? Oh, and no "magic" between you and your code, so no mystery as to how it all works.
So essentially what both of you are doing is simply waving to your fellow herd members and saying "Don't worry! We won't upset the apple cart." It's about optics and belonging, not reality.
And it's a shame, because these frameworks and libraries are not moving FE design forward, they are blocking it. They are a terrible drag, and each new example meant to "fix" the problems caused by the previous one (which at the time was heralded as the great new way around the problems of the ones it replaced) only introduces new problems and takes us further off course.
The best possible web application a) has no features not needed by the user, b) has no gratuitous design nonsense, c) loads no code that isn't specific to the app (no dependencies on anything not already in the user agent), d) includes no code that isn't absolutely necessary for the functionality of that page, and e) is semantically correct and includes appropriate metadata and security measures.
The smartest thing any dev ever said to me was, "Never write a line of code until you have to." The same applies to dependencies. Never add a dependency until you absolutely have to. You'd be surprised how often the big panacea tool everyone is hyping isn't really a benefit at all.
I get it that this is heresy to all the boys and their toys, but I think the evidence will, in the end, bear me out.
This isn't quite the way I would do it (I think web components are largely unnecessary, though I love the event bus), but it shows that it can be done easily: Real World Vanilla JS Even Driven Web Components.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Totally agree, especially if you don't work on just one project.
That's what you think, which is pretty much what every other dev in the herd thinks. Why would you be any different? And it seems true to herd animals. It's those mirror neurons. Hooray for the bandwagon!
But how many websites have you actually built -- reasonably functional sites (if they are very complex then they are too big) -- using just vanilla JS/CSS/HTML? Have you ever built any? Post a link!
If the answer is no then you are just bloviating. You have no data from which to draw these conclusions. And if you say you "tried" it once or twice, well, I bet you beat your head against the wall for a long time trying to build React apps before you succeeded. I sure did. Did Webpack just magically work for you? I practically have PTSD from messing with Webpack. Why would you expect to learn anything new to you with no effort?
When you make these claims then you are forgetting just how painful learning React, various build systems, IDEs, state management, etc. was. Remember all the brouhaha when React hooks came out about how they would eliminate the "pain" of Redux? And have they, really? Or have they just replaced one pain with another? useEffect is a bear to learn. Working with the actual DOM via React is still painful. And most devs are still using hooks wrongly. Just look at all the clickbait crap on Medium telling you how to "do it right".
Building web apps isn't getting easier, it's getting more complex and difficult. Layer upon layer upon layer. Don't they call it "JavaScript hell"? But is it really hell to just write exactly the code your site needs?
So you compare the current methodology of libraries and frameworks galore -- one in which you have invested an enormous amount of painful effort to learn -- with one that you've never really tried, if you're honest. Had you invested that same effort in actually learning HTML and CSS and the "good parts" of JS, isn't it possible that you'd be able to build state-of-the-art websites (all of which, no exceptions, are built with HTML, CSS, and JS and only HTML, CSS, and JS) just as quickly and easily as using these monstrous libraries and frameworks?
And with no dependence on other devs' code (and hygiene), no concerns about version conflicts, no need for regular house cleaning and upgrading, no big bulky bandwidth-hogging downloads? Oh, and no "magic" between you and your code, so no mystery as to how it all works.
So essentially what both of you are doing is simply waving to your fellow herd members and saying "Don't worry! We won't upset the apple cart." It's about optics and belonging, not reality.
And it's a shame, because these frameworks and libraries are not moving FE design forward, they are blocking it. They are a terrible drag, and each new example meant to "fix" the problems caused by the previous one (which at the time was heralded as the great new way around the problems of the ones it replaced) only introduces new problems and takes us further off course.
The best possible web application a) has no features not needed by the user, b) has no gratuitous design nonsense, c) loads no code that isn't specific to the app (no dependencies on anything not already in the user agent), d) includes no code that isn't absolutely necessary for the functionality of that page, and e) is semantically correct and includes appropriate metadata and security measures.
The smartest thing any dev ever said to me was, "Never write a line of code until you have to." The same applies to dependencies. Never add a dependency until you absolutely have to. You'd be surprised how often the big panacea tool everyone is hyping isn't really a benefit at all.
I get it that this is heresy to all the boys and their toys, but I think the evidence will, in the end, bear me out.
This isn't quite the way I would do it (I think web components are largely unnecessary, though I love the event bus), but it shows that it can be done easily: Real World Vanilla JS Even Driven Web Components.