Slashdot Mirror
'The State of JavaScript Frameworks, 2017' (npmjs.com)
An anonymous reader shares some new statistics from Laurie Voss, co-founder and COO of npm (the package manager/software registry for JavaScript):
The sum of all the package downloads in the npm Registry shows that the npm ecosystem continues to experience explosive, continuous growth... Right now, we estimate about 75% of all JavaScript developers use npm, and that number is rising quickly to reach 100%. We believe there are about 10 million npm users right now.
The first post in a three-part series graphs the popularity and growth rate for seven JavaScript frameworks.
The first post in a three-part series graphs the popularity and growth rate for seven JavaScript frameworks.
- Preact is tiny but the fastest-growing.
- Vue is also very fast growing and neck and neck with Ember, Angular and Backbone
- Ember has grown more popular in the last 12 months.
- Angular and Backbone have both declined in popularity.
- jQuery remains hugely popular but decreasingly so.
- React is both huge and very fast-growing for its size.
There is no statistics for the Vanilla JS library.
Why people continue to use librairies and frameworks in 2018 is baffling. INTERNET EXPLORER IS DEAD, why the fuck are you still dragging megabtes of librairies and frameworks?
The three I've heard of are in decline to varying degrees.
Shoot me. No, get off my lawn and then shoot me.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There are so many frameworks and they are all trying to upstage one another. The lessons learned from these frameworks should be incorporated back in ECMA script. For example, the JQuery $() operator would be my first recommendation.
How long until there is an ad being served that runs Javascript/Webassembly code that exploits Spectre to steal all your passwords?
I'm so glad we have "near native" execution speeds for this shit.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I've made a couple highly dynamic javascript page with jquery. We're talking a lot of sliding panels being positioned nicely etc. The damn thing worked the same on every mobile device, every browser, anywhere we tried it. I can't see that happening without a lot of testing on native javascript.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Angular is pregnant, Vue was the Maxim hottest framework of the year, and jQuery gained 15 pounds on its vacation, pictures inside!
You couldn't ask for a better illustration of Alan Kay's statement that most programming is pop culture.
You presume anybody but circle-jerking javascript-monkeys wants all that sliding shit.
Me, I want the content. Preferably still readable using a probably text-only but certainly javascript-free browser. It doesn't have to look "exactly the same" on wildly disparate devices, since I'm not looking at ten different ones at a time. It only has to be readable on this one right before me. And amazingly, that's not a "mobile device" nor a "tablet" or whichever "content consumption device" is the latest fad, but in fact probably a 80x25 screen (in 19", but still), because that's my best shot at being productive, whether it be writing code or writing prose.
And yes, at the end of the day, serving that content to all comers, not serving it the way your latest fad would have it, but carefully and politely serving it how those website visitors want it, is what ought to lead your "design". Even should I be the last person on earth to still use 80x25 screens, then you still will bow to my wishes and make it work. It does not currently work that way in the 'web, and that deficit is a major reason why the 'web sucks so much it is barely usable at all. Your javascript addiction helps for nothing but worsening the problem. Plus that the wholy "dynamic" shitstack has the staying power of a mayfly, and brings with it a veritable host of other problems besides. But let's explore that some other time.
Then again, anything that isn't readable the most straight-forward and simple way probably isn't worth my time in the first place. This already became clear with the dark grey on light grey in teeny tiny fonts sizes "design" fad. So carry on, I guess. Anything that disqualifies itself from my attention is that much less to read when I have too much to read already. Carry on.
You have it absolutely backwards. Coding your own crap instead of using the good, solid, portable, tested code in jQuery is the sign of a code monkey, hacking away until they get something that sort of looks like it works.
Ha, I completely agree with your premise, but I don't think jQuery is really a bad offender in this respect. Basically it's just a way to query the DOM using CSS selectors and some utility functions for working with it that way. Hardly Lego. Some other frameworks are pretty bad in this respect though.
Done correctly, javascript can be a more efficient way of interacting with data server side, both client and server.
Rendering new whole pages is more expensive than manipulating DOM content to handle updates.
Now going over the top with ugly animations like a high schooler with power point.....
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
And even then its a nuisance as they get updated in breaking versions - my mate works with Angular and spits feathers when its mentioned. What incompatible version is it on now? Angular 5?
I feel like that too. But the problem is, browser just aren't fucking good enough. We're restricted by the shortcomings of them, so you have to use other people's code or you'd never get anything written. But it's definitely a good point about using other people's libraries (who use other people's libraries) and so on.
Nothing on the web, including Javascript itself, is good, solid, portable, and tested. If these frameworks were stable, they wouldn't be updated literally every day!
Most frameworks I've come across are for convenience, not portability. I've had my fill of frameworks that did batshit insane stuff, like testing for features by probing for the browser's trademark name, all in the name of delivering bleeding-edge features for the lazy that shouldn't be used in the first place.
What I've always wondered is why didn't they stick with C type declaration?