Comments on: You’re Fat and I Hate You http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:35:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: omnicity http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-2/#comment-851172 omnicity Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:53:40 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-851172 @haigek: No, that's part of the point. If you have a collection of scripts, then you will re-use the good ones when you need. If you use a framework, then you get everything, every time, even when you only need a fraction of it. @Lea Verou: That is part of the problem: clearly some of the frameworks have been written by people who are (for example:) PHP gurus first and foremost, and therefore those frameworks tend to look and feel like working in other languages, which is really not good for anyone who is serious about JavaScript work. @haigek:
No, that’s part of the point. If you have a collection of scripts, then you will re-use the good ones when you need.
If you use a framework, then you get everything, every time, even when you only need a fraction of it.

@Lea Verou:
That is part of the problem: clearly some of the frameworks have been written by people who are (for example:) PHP gurus first and foremost, and therefore those frameworks tend to look and feel like working in other languages, which is really not good for anyone who is serious about JavaScript work.

]]> By: Lea Verou http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-2/#comment-850658 Lea Verou Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:47:57 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-850658 When I read debates like this one, I can't help but wonder: In which group of the two (framework users and js-savvy developers) does a framework author belong in? When I read debates like this one, I can’t help but wonder:
In which group of the two (framework users and js-savvy developers) does a framework author belong in?

]]> By: David Mark http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-2/#comment-845887 David Mark Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:24:33 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-845887 Yes. The popular do-everything libraries are a terrible idea. The only arguments for using them are from those who don't know any better. They are *not* cross-browser, but barely multi-browser, so they are inherently inappropriate for Web development. Maintenance and support are a nightmare. Companies figure this out after the code monkeys have left the building. Yes. The popular do-everything libraries are a terrible idea. The only arguments for using them are from those who don’t know any better. They are *not* cross-browser, but barely multi-browser, so they are inherently inappropriate for Web development. Maintenance and support are a nightmare. Companies figure this out after the code monkeys have left the building.

]]> By: Skeptic http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-2/#comment-797137 Skeptic Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:14 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-797137 I've resisted using frameworks for a few reasons: I'd rather spend the time learning more JavaScript, which is universal, rather than learning a framework, which is not. Each framework has a different user interface, and learning one is not going to help me on a project where they're using a different one. But JavaScript is always JavaScript. Also, when I hire developers for a project, if I can only hire people who (in addition to JavaScript) also know JQuery, or also know MooTools, or whatever, then I'm greatly restricting my pool of potential hires. By contrast, all Web developers know JavaScript. Finally, years ago, I was dependent on Dreamweaver (which I disliked) to write my "behaviors" for me, because I didn't know JavaScript. I decided to learn JavaScript so I could gain control and stop using Dreamweaver -- and it worked. Using a canned JS library now would feel a little like going back to Dreamweaver. Of course, I've built up my own "library" of reusable code. It's not as optimized or all-powerful as Scriptofabulous, but I understand how it works, I can change it if I like, and I learned a lot by creating it. I’ve resisted using frameworks for a few reasons:
I’d rather spend the time learning more JavaScript, which is universal, rather than learning a framework, which is not. Each framework has a different user interface, and learning one is not going to help me on a project where they’re using a different one. But JavaScript is always JavaScript.
Also, when I hire developers for a project, if I can only hire people who (in addition to JavaScript) also know JQuery, or also know MooTools, or whatever, then I’m greatly restricting my pool of potential hires. By contrast, all Web developers know JavaScript.
Finally, years ago, I was dependent on Dreamweaver (which I disliked) to write my “behaviors” for me, because I didn’t know JavaScript. I decided to learn JavaScript so I could gain control and stop using Dreamweaver — and it worked. Using a canned JS library now would feel a little like going back to Dreamweaver.

Of course, I’ve built up my own “library” of reusable code. It’s not as optimized or all-powerful as Scriptofabulous, but I understand how it works, I can change it if I like, and I learned a lot by creating it.

]]> By: Schmoo http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-1/#comment-742007 Schmoo Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:27:56 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-742007 I don't have time to go to great lengths understanding every interesting effect I come across either, and I generally want to know exactly how everything works also. Can you not just do as I do, and view the new effect as "using and from "? I don't see how using a javascript framework is any different in this respect than using third-party software, classes, APIs etc. You can use Google maps' API without intimate knowledge of the code that runs it, can't you? If not, you might want to up your workload slightly ;) I don’t have time to go to great lengths understanding every interesting effect I come across either, and I generally want to know exactly how everything works also. Can you not just do as I do, and view the new effect as “using and from “?

I don’t see how using a javascript framework is any different in this respect than using third-party software, classes, APIs etc. You can use Google maps’ API without intimate knowledge of the code that runs it, can’t you? If not, you might want to up your workload slightly ;)

]]> By: haigek http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-1/#comment-740757 haigek Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:47:49 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-740757 To the author, a rhetorical question: <strong>do you reuse any of your code?</strong> <strong>Of course you do, and</strong> if you consistently find a need for certain behaviors <strong>you have undoubtedly also built up a sizable collection of reusable code</strong> that you have tweaked and massaged over the years. You've built a framework, whether you recognize it or not. It may not feel like it, because it's <strong>your particular framework,</strong> well suited to exactly the sorts of things <strong>you</strong><strong> need it to do. But it </strong><strong>is</strong> a framework. <strong>You understand it intimately, as should anyone proficient with any framework he uses.</strong> Sure, some folks will approach the framework at the surface level -- they'll understand every nuance of the API -- while others will want to dive deeper (like me). Personally, I would never use a framework I hadn't at least peeked under the hood at, but with a sufficient trust of the source (based on past personal experience or the past experience of others I trust) my need to dig down goes down... until it comes time to extend the framework, of course. ;-) To the author, a rhetorical question: do you reuse any of your code?

Of course you do, and if you consistently find a need for certain behaviors you have undoubtedly also built up a sizable collection of reusable code that you have tweaked and massaged over the years.

You’ve built a framework, whether you recognize it or not. It may not feel like it, because it’s your particular framework, well suited to exactly the sorts of things you need it to do. But it is a framework.

You understand it intimately, as should anyone proficient with any framework he uses.

Sure, some folks will approach the framework at the surface level — they’ll understand every nuance of the API — while others will want to dive deeper (like me). Personally, I would never use a framework I hadn’t at least peeked under the hood at, but with a sufficient trust of the source (based on past personal experience or the past experience of others I trust) my need to dig down goes down… until it comes time to extend the framework, of course. ;-)

]]> By: omnicity http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-1/#comment-720844 omnicity Mon, 12 May 2008 10:23:49 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-720844 I simply don't follow what you are getting at when you say: "applications written using a framework are essentially using meta-code " If you install an entire framework to get a single effect then you are certainly importing a load of un-needed functions, but those functions are nothing special - they will slow down the page load, but are very unlikely to impact on the speed of any existing functions. I simply don’t follow what you are getting at when you say: “applications written using a framework are essentially using meta-code “

If you install an entire framework to get a single effect then you are certainly importing a load of un-needed functions, but those functions are nothing special – they will slow down the page load, but are very unlikely to impact on the speed of any existing functions.

]]> By: Justen http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-1/#comment-711814 Justen Thu, 01 May 2008 04:12:18 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-711814 Obscuring and streamlining freaky-ass browser specific interpretations of the DOM and reducing reinvention is hardly a thing to complain about. While some of the larger frameworks are a little clunky you can strip them down to the essential components that improve DOM compatibility if you like. Have a problem reading the optimized versions? You do know they offer non-optimized human readable versions on the websites along with extensive documentation (at least with the good ones like prototype and jQuery)? If you really wanted to know how these guys worked you might spend more time reading about it and less time blogging about how you hate 'em, they almost unilaterally make the web a better place. Obscuring and streamlining freaky-ass browser specific interpretations of the DOM and reducing reinvention is hardly a thing to complain about. While some of the larger frameworks are a little clunky you can strip them down to the essential components that improve DOM compatibility if you like. Have a problem reading the optimized versions? You do know they offer non-optimized human readable versions on the websites along with extensive documentation (at least with the good ones like prototype and jQuery)?
If you really wanted to know how these guys worked you might spend more time reading about it and less time blogging about how you hate ‘em, they almost unilaterally make the web a better place.

]]> By: dgibson http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-1/#comment-709828 dgibson Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:04:58 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-709828 Hah, where is the author of this piece? I think it totally misses the mark, makes horrible assumptions and a horrible analogy. I started looking into some JavaScript libraries just for the fact that they took care of so much of the basics (like cross browser event attaching/handling) nicely. They basically do the same thing on other fronts too. So in some sense, I do agree with the person who said developers who don't use frameworks are irresponsible. How many developers will write their scripts perfectly cross browser and optimized for performance out of the gate? If you can, then great, but I think 99% of the time the fact is that the libraries are so well optimized that they are actually faster than an ad-hoc piece of code. Of course not for something basic where the abstraction is for nothing, but most people can't write GetElementBy CSS-selector equivalents and apply numerous effects to object that will run faster than a quality JS library does. Finally, let's face it, the number of good JavaScript programmers has always been low. With all of the libraries around, the vast majority of cut and paste JavaScripters has improved their code and codebase a thousandfold easily. Hah, where is the author of this piece? I think it totally misses the mark, makes horrible assumptions and a horrible analogy.

I started looking into some JavaScript libraries just for the fact that they took care of so much of the basics (like cross browser event attaching/handling) nicely. They basically do the same thing on other fronts too.

So in some sense, I do agree with the person who said developers who don’t use frameworks are irresponsible. How many developers will write their scripts perfectly cross browser and optimized for performance out of the gate? If you can, then great, but I think 99% of the time the fact is that the libraries are so well optimized that they are actually faster than an ad-hoc piece of code. Of course not for something basic where the abstraction is for nothing, but most people can’t write GetElementBy CSS-selector equivalents and apply numerous effects to object that will run faster than a quality JS library does.

Finally, let’s face it, the number of good JavaScript programmers has always been low. With all of the libraries around, the vast majority of cut and paste JavaScripters has improved their code and codebase a thousandfold easily.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/17/youre-fat-and-i-hate-you/comment-page-1/#comment-709823 Anonymous Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:01:54 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2435#comment-709823 Hah, where is the author of this piece? I think it totally misses the mark, makes horrible assumptions and a horrible analogy. I started looking into some JavaScript libraries just for the fact that they took care of so much of the basics (like cross browser event attaching/handling) nicely. They basically do the same thing on other fronts too. So in some sense, I do agree with the person who said developers who don't use frameworks are irresponsible. How many developers will write their scripts perfectly cross browser and optimized for performance out of the gate? If you can, then great, but I think 99% of the time the fact is that the libraries are so well optimized that they are actually faster than an ad-hoc piece of code. Of course not for something basic where the abstraction is for nothing, but most people can't write GetElementBy CSS-selector equivalents and apply numerous effects to object that will run faster than a quality JS library does. Finally, let's face it, the number of good JavaScript programmers has always been low. With all of the libraries around, the vast majority of cut and paste JavaScripters has improved their code and codebase a thousandfold easily. Hah, where is the author of this piece? I think it totally misses the mark, makes horrible assumptions and a horrible analogy.

I started looking into some JavaScript libraries just for the fact that they took care of so much of the basics (like cross browser event attaching/handling) nicely. They basically do the same thing on other fronts too.

So in some sense, I do agree with the person who said developers who don’t use frameworks are irresponsible. How many developers will write their scripts perfectly cross browser and optimized for performance out of the gate? If you can, then great, but I think 99% of the time the fact is that the libraries are so well optimized that they are actually faster than an ad-hoc piece of code. Of course not for something basic where the abstraction is for nothing, but most people can’t write GetElementBy CSS-selector equivalents and apply numerous effects to object that will run faster than a quality JS library does.

Finally, let’s face it, the number of good JavaScript programmers has always been low. With all of the libraries around, the vast majority of cut and paste JavaScripters has improved their code and codebase a thousandfold easily.

]]>