undefined

points

[-]

I take it you've never suggested to a front-end dev that maybe their contact form doesn't need a 1MB+ of JavaScript framework and could just be HTML that submits to a backend.

by philipwhiuk1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Live-form validation? Auto-complete? Any of these ringing a bell?

It's almost like there are genuine UX improvements being done

by simonw14 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

That should be a few dozen lines of vanilla JavaScript.

by austin-cheney8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Then you and I are talking to different people. Fortunately, I don't work in JavaScript for employment any more. As a frame of reference just the mere mention that a site could be 50-200x faster by dumping React creates conflicts of interests for impacted developers and the results are typically not immediately welcoming. That isn't shitting on anybody's work, especially if you provide guidance for improvement, but if a large group of developers cannot function without React their perception of "shitting on their work" will be less objective.

by johnfn7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It doesn't surprise me that you got a lot of people upset at you. "Dumping React" is not a viable strategy for the large majority of organizations. This would be like saying that you could improve performance by rewriting the backend into Rust.

by austin-cheney4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Perfect example of what I am talking about.

People want faster software... until they are confronted by challenging decisions. JavaScript can be very fast. JavaScript, in the browser, reports a page load of about 0.06 seconds for my large personal SPA and that includes state restoration. That is determined by using: performance.getEntries()[0].duration in the browser.

When conflicts arise people most frequently become emotional and complain about the situation than make any decision towards resolution one way or the other. That is a psychological problem called cognitive conservatism[1]. About the half the time that emotional output is some form of deflection, such as hostility. Cognitive conservatism is only allowed to exist when there is insufficient pressure on the thought leaders to impose a resolution.

Its okay to say you don't really want to be faster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_(belief_revision)

See also cognitive complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_complexity#In_psycho...

by agos2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Insinuating the person you’re discussing with has a psychological problem is also not a great way to win minds

by austin-cheney2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I did no such thing. That you see such is an example of front end developers seeing everything through emotionally tinted glasses. If you want to talk numbers we can talk numbers, but it doesn't matter if the first matter is whether or your not the numbers offend you.

by johnfn24 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> When conflicts arise people most frequently become emotional and complain about the situation than make any decision towards resolution one way or the other. That is a psychological problem called cognitive conservatism[1]. About the half the time that emotional output is some form of deflection, such as hostility. Cognitive conservatism is only allowed to exist when there is insufficient pressure on the thought leaders to impose a resolution.

Please consider that it is your own behavior which leads to these responses. When you are getting repeated "hostile" reactions from everyone you try to state your case to, instead of insisting that everyone else is wrong, it might be wise to look inwards and ask yourself if you are the problem.

It is interesting that you claim that the only reason you can think of that people disagree with you that they are emotional. Have you considered that you might be wrong?