> I'm not old enough to be responsible for stuff like that but I am incompetent enough.
Now that is a great conversation starter! I assume you think you know more than the senior/lead/architect on the team. You might, but have fun with that mentality. It's not sure to last. :)
Bit.Trip Runner was not this difficult. And it's hard to make out the difference between an open space and a closed one. I tried it about 30 times and then gave up.
At work we have been using Angular for about a year and we had evaluated Ember and decided not to use it because it wasn't really as good at the time. It may be better now, but I'm not as excited. Here's why:
1. For most applications, the JS MVC framework needs server-side backing, so don't fool yourself: You are no longer using MVC- you are using MVC X 2. There is no magic server-side out there that runs on self-generated jellybeans and weed that will power these frameworks. They are beautiful but unnecessary cruft in such pretty packaging that you think they are doing you a favor and washing your clothes for you. But they are only washing part of your clothes. The rest are still dirty and on the floor.
2. Despite the old saying, "Everything at some point will be written in JavaScript," it is not JavaScript, but rather mobile application development that is leading the charge in the development world currently. It is the platform and the accessibility (intuitive, easily held and portable), and not the "how" (whether it is webkit running Ember or Angular).
So, even though it is awesome that Ember and Angular are great, and I'm happy for you Yahuda, just like I'm happy for Misko/Igor/Vojta, I think this is a lot about only part of a solution, and it might not even be the right one. The whole package and the platform must be considered, not just the web client UI.
So, I ask, now that v1.0 is out, what is being done about considering the ease of developing the entire shebang?
Recently I was downvoted 2-3 times on S.O. for an answer that was claimed to be non-idiomatic. So, I cleaned it up, but it really irked me. What I had written was totally fine. It shouldn't have hurt anyone's eyes. It was direct. It was in-your-face. It was not magic.
Reading this post brought back that feeling.
If people don't understand a completely valid and terse way of coding something, sometimes instead of bothering to understand it, they will bash it. Sometimes, this is a totally valid way to vent frustration, and then they learn something new, and all is good. But sometimes, it just gets left as "this is wrong" and then someone else thinks it is wrong, and so on. That is wrong, and tech leads or architects that enforce such crap will bug the living shit out of good developers and lose them.
I appreciate clarity. But, terse one-liners can be just as clear if not clearer than code that unnecessarily adds more methods/functions/names/local vars and claims to be "more testable", etc.
You shouldn't have to sacrifice the ability to be terse and clear at the same time. Testing is no excuse for code bloat. You can likely write a test that executes the behavior without having to atomize it. Assess the amount of production and test code you are writing. How much more code are you actually having to write in order to test, both in the tests themselves and in the code which you are having to test?
It happened here with Python and it happens in many languages. It even happens with laws and regulations in government. If someone gets the same thing done just as ethically but without the bureaucracy, just appreciate it as another perhaps better way of doing something. Don't bash it publically because you don't understand it.
Now that is a great conversation starter! I assume you think you know more than the senior/lead/architect on the team. You might, but have fun with that mentality. It's not sure to last. :)