[prea]

> All of the virtual ink in this article, and honestly most of the complexity in the field overall... and it seems to really all just boil down to, 'I think this looks cooler.'

IMO there's significant complexity in building a feature-rich frontend client. The "thicker" the client, the worse it gets. There's definitely a lot of 'I think this looks cooler' going around, but also we shouldn't forget that the need to come up with something better is partially a response to very real, very-not-imagined, frontend complexity.

[usrbinbash]

> IMO there's significant complexity in building a feature-rich frontend client.

Doing complex things is always complex, but when SIMPLE things are complex, then something is going very wrong.

And this is exactly where we are with most JS frameworks these days. Layer upon Layer of abstraction, and instead of the complexity the dev has to deal with decreasing as a result of it being abstracted into frameworks offering simple interfaces, complexity increases.

[nawgz]

> this is exactly where we are with most JS frameworks these days

Have you been saying the same thing since 2014? JS frameworks have never been simpler, never been more discoverable thanks to TS, and there are plenty of levels of abstraction a developer can put between themselves and vanilla JS. But even calling React too-far-abstracted-to-be-simple is comical; it's a simple system offering composition of components.