How do people keep up with the latest js meme?

React / Redux

>>59876017
Node, usually

vanilla.js

they don't. they pick one JS meme, stick with it, then tell continually everyone else to get on board with all the other latest JS memes so they all their time adapting and none of their time being viable competition

>>59876017
Vuejs is decent, certainly comfier than react and angular.

Just using that piece of shit to edit and read the DOM and nothing more

Javascript is absolute cancer. Its here to stay,but every 3 months we have a new meme. JS and all tools related are just for fast development with 0 scalability and quality... I wish we could go back in time and fix this shit

>>59876340
well why don't you fix that shit?

>>59876461
You cant, thats the point, its easy, cheap anf you can teach monkeys to use it. But thats why there is no quality.

just ignore it.
use elm instead.
thank me later

>>59876340
The entire web stack...HTML, CSS, JavaScript, HTTP...all of it...all of it is cancer.

I wish we could go back in time and invent a completely different and sane hyperlinked media protocol.

>>59876017
Front-end dev here: it's basically impossible to keep up with it all.

You have to pick a major framework and hope it sticks around for longer than 3 years.

https://github.com/kamranahmedse/developer-roadmap

good luck niggers

>>59877483
Of course it's overcomplicated mess. Written by pajeet kek

>>59877541
he seems like a better pajeet though, this roadmap was shared with me by my friend working at Uber as a web dev rn

>>59876044
/thread

http://elm-lang.org/

File: nodejs icon.png (29KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 512x512px

>>59877374
are you actually retarded ?
how in the sweet mother of fuck are you going to invent a better replacement for http ?
there is a reason there is a saying "don't reinvent the wheel"

>>59878132
then why do you javascript devs do it every 3 months

>>59877374
Why don't you tell why you don't like http

>>59876044

barf

>>59876017

I use JS as a C/C++ programmer sometimes. Made a website or two

it actually aint bad

but I've never touched a library because don't want to get memed

>>59877374
HTTP is fine though, it's the technologies on top of it that are cancer.

why do people omit semicolons on es6? are semis; now optional?

>>59878132
>how are you going to invent a better replacement for http

>gopher

>>59876029
4 years since they open sourced it
>>59876039
8 years old now
>>59876128
3 years old

The "JS developer fatigue" meme is old now.

If you still wanna complain I got 2 words for you:

Get gud.

>>59881831
People have been doing that for years now, its the Javascript "ninjas" who think that lower char count = faster performance.

It's retarded. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

>>59876017
read /r/programmingcirclejerk and hacker news, you'll almost always be in the loop with those two

The fuck do people even need bajillion js libraries anyway? You really don't need any of them to begin with, vanilla html with a handful of event listeners and css transitions can do all the animations you would need on a webpage.

I understand libraries for things that would be difficult to build on your own, like something that handles the 86 different hooplas for touch device implementations (for which there is no powerful enough native alternatives). Or jQuery which really just makes DOM manipulation and ajax calls easier.

But then you have idiocies like Angular which is basically a ridiculously overcomplicated forcibly OOP solution for things that native JS can do just as easily.

>>59877374
Im actually with you on this in so many ways.

HTTP is natively stateless, so we implement stressful work arounds.

HTML is a static document descriptor language, so we implement dynamic work arounds.

CSS is a format definition language, so we make it handle display styles.

JS is a lightweight, low-intensity language, we opt to kill flash and make JS do all it's heavy weight operations.

Anyone know what the doc type is going to look like for HTML6 (when we one day, inevitably, get there) because I don't see a version number in <!DOCTYPE html>, will it just be <!DOCTYPE html6> ? Because if that's the case why isn't html5 <!DOCTYPE html5>.

Bah!

My real issue is that Email is about 100x more fucked up....

the only frameworks that are worth learning is either react, angular, and vue. and the thing is you don't really need to learn all of them, just try and pick the one you like or whichever one your job prospect is requiring.

>>59877374
Ruby on rails was invented for this reason

Speaking of Angular, are there some weird ass pitfalls to take in mind? Starting a job that requires an old 1.X version of it.

>>59882024
>Anyone know what the doc type is going to look like for HTML6 (when we one day, inevitably, get there) because I don't see a version number in <!DOCTYPE html>, will it just be <!DOCTYPE html6> ? Because if that's the case why isn't html5 <!DOCTYPE html5>.

They made html5 have that doctype so people can easily type it in, the old ones were longer and more complicated.

I don't think there will ever be html6 for two reasons. One is that they keep shoving in new shit to html5 up to this day. It's not finalized and doesn't seem to be anywhere near. Plus there are mobiles that just don't support a lot of newer standards fine, and they cannot be upgraded to a newer browser either.

The other reason is because browsers turned into an utter clusterfuck that support random things for every imaginable version on every different device. I'm crying back the days of IE6, because back then you at least had a fixed platform to work around. Now you have bajillion platforms with completely random errors. It is impossible to test things anymore.

>My real issue is that Email is about 100x more fucked up....

Displaying emails is what is supremely fucked up. Just today I got a bug that the email signature we designed for a client does not work on iOS (the design falls apart, positioning is not kept, table heights and backgrounds are ignored, etc). How the fuck do you even begin to debug that...

>>59882229

I hear you but my only issue is...
> I don't think there will ever be html6
...sounds a lot like "640 kB is enough" (be it that was actually a miss-quote, that was apparently never said.). Needs and requirements change over time and the most radical changes are never forseen. Just be thanksful for the few browsers which still support;

<marquee><blink><table>...</table><blink></marquee>

Never forgive, never forget :)

>>59882400
The reason there won't be html6 is because they aren't finalizing html5. Ten years from now you'll still have html5, just with shitload of new features.