Do you guys know what javascript frameworks might be useful for?

Do you guys know what javascript frameworks might be useful for?

Attached: Angular-React-VueJS-logo.png (730x357, 14K)

Other urls found in this thread:

catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s04.html
people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/unix2.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I don't know what you're trying to say but I do think you should hang yourself ASAP.

Hmmm, I know they are useful for keeping people who know better than to enable javascript from viewing their website. Let's face it, javascript is the modern day ActiveX.

Working in San Fransicko, but then the same could be said for selling your neghole to be pozed for a few dollars.

Imagine you are a shitty company, and can only afford shitty programmers. You don't want them all to write their own shit code that no one else can decipher, and you anticipate high turnover. Thusly, you force these low level interchangeable cogs barely deserving of the term 'coder' into using a constrained development model fashioned around a framework.

They're useful for making your website slow, bloated, and annoying to use

For code shitting!

Learn plain JS first, then use these tools to save time.

They might be useful for creating mobile applications, that do not respect users' freedom, quickly and easily. With React native you can create enterprise solutions that seem professional, without even knowing what are you doing. Perfect terminal to a botnet.

JavaScript frameworks are useful as an example of how much the UNIX philosophy sucks. First you need millions of lines for a kernel, millions more for a C compiler and "tools", then you need millions of lines of code for a GUI, tens of millions of lines of code for a browser, and finally you need massive "frameworks" (usually "minified") on top, reinventing the same wheels on every level, all of that just to give you an environment worse than what 80s Lisp machines did with 1 million lines (including useful applications) and worse error handling than 60s assembly programs that ran in 16KB (including the OS).

Once one strips away the cryptology, the issue is control.UNIX is an operating system that offers the promise ofultimate user control (ie: no OS engineer's going to take away from ME!), which was a good thing in itsinfancy, less good now, where the idiom has caused hugeredundancies between software packages. How many B*Treepackages do we NEED? I think that I learned factoring inhigh school; and that certain file idioms are agreed to inthe industry as Good Ideas. So why not support certaincommon denominators in the OS?Just because you CAN do something in user programs does notmean it's a terribly good idea to enforce it as policy. Ifsociety ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a carwould be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels ofcrude...

If you think Javascript frameworks are an example of the Unix philosophy, you need to reevaluate your life.

His definition of the Unix philosophy is so fucking broad that he regularly cites Microsoft Windows and bloated web browsers as good examples of Unix. Most of his examples of Unix being shit are from ancient commercial implementations, gigantic webshit, or screeching about kernel sizes when most of that code is drivers.

I've never seen him say this, but why would you even want to use something following the UNIX weenie philosophy anyways?

JavaScript frameworks are a perfect example of the UNIX philosophy. Web browsers need millions of lines of code just to implement a language that sucks and still need more megabytes of "framework" code to be halfway usable.

My definition of the UNIX philosophy is whatever UNIX does, just like the definition of C was whatever the PDP-11 compiler did. Windows does not follow the UNIX philosophy, but it's written in C, so C brain damage infected Windows (literally, due to viruses, spyware, and ransomware spread by exploiting bugs in C code). UNIX weenies always bring up hypothetical bullshit they "could" do with 15,600 people if they were able to throw everything away and start over again or pretend that "good parts" that only apply to 0.1% of the OS are a "philosophy" of UNIX. On the other hand, people who like Multics, Lisp machines, Ada, PL/I, and so on, are always talking about specific things that actually exist. Lisp machine users talk about actual facts like how all the code can be modified and the condition system and object system. UNIX weenies say things like "Rule of Economy: Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time" which is another way of saying their code is slow even though they don't check any errors.

In this case, the problem is that JavaScript sucks, so it needs another couple million lines of code (a framework) to actually do something useful. Even Eric S. Raymond says this is "What Unix Gets Wrong."
catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s04.html
Browsers are bloated because a browser "should be" just an empty shell for bookmarks, tabs, and GUI features like fonts, images, buttons and textboxes that other software on your computer already does. It needs 50 million lines of code just to turn HTML, CSS, and JavaScript into something your computer can already do. Eric S. Raymond is agreeing that "If society ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a car would be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels of crude..." but he says it's a good thing. I agree with "mechanism, not policy" in libraries because that increases code reuse, but for applications like browsers, it just means everyone has to repeat the same code and reinvent wheels over and over again.

This is like another planet where people believe that bad is good and broken code is better than working code. Solving the wrong problem the right way just means a different group of users will appreciate it. Lisp was made for AI, but became used for GUIs, 3D graphics, and all kinds of other applications. Solving the right problem the wrong way is how you end up with UNIX, C, C++, JavaScript, asm.js, WebAssembly, Linux, UEFI, GRUB, sendmail, awk, bash, 50 million line web browsers, and so on.

I'm having this nightmare in which a chorus of unix weeniepod-people chants: "sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard" "sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard" "sendmail is what the internet communty accepts as standard"over and over again, as they shuffle relentlessly towardsme, clutching hideous kludges that they claim are "InternetStandards", that I must accept in order to be "compatable".In vain, I throw copies of the actual Internet protocoldocuments back at them in a futile attempt to demonstratethe difference between the Internet and Unix. Copies ofRFC821 and RFC822 are simply trampled under their feet asthey close in around me. As I lose consciousness, I thinksome of them have switched to chanting: "you are number six" "you are number six" "you are number six"

Existed*, briefly and miserably in PL/I's case someday I'd like to write a PL/I compiler for shits and giggles but don't expect anything to come from it. If Unixfags want something bad enough, they write it themselves. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes not. Unix Haters, on the other hand, sit around and twiddle their thumbs while moaning about the good old days and how no one writes software for them.
As someone interested in non-Unix OSdev, parrots like you are the worst. You've basically killed Zig Forums's Ada and Lisp discussions because no one wants to be associated with your boomer rants, usenet quotespam, and constant appeals to Windows/webshit/X11/shit everyone already hates when good Unix software already exists.
The Unix family is not incapable of producing good software and has some interesting ideas, even if some design quirks, language choices, and historical baggage like X11 make it more difficult than it should be.

Fuck off, faggot.

do you people still read the unix haters' textwalls? I pretty much just scroll past them at this point. Thankfully they're very easy to identify visually.

Because The truth sets you free.

They don't. Sometimes I write a block of text full of nothing in particular, sign it with a fake usenet quote for shits and giggles, and anons assume it's the Unix Haters fag through the formatting alone.

Attached: 1457293772860.png (1280x720, 707.72K)

...