IMO these "influential technical people" and vendors just see it as an opportunity to add their name to something new and therefore keep their jobs a bit longer.
Plus doing the same old thing is boring so anything new can be a good change even if the old thing was "better". On Monday, 28 November 2016, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote: > I **think** Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how >> hard it was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You >> have learnt what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech >> just because Scott Hanselmann mentioned it. >> > > Yeah sorry, it started as a somewhat surprised complaint over how messy it > was to get Node.js working. Node.js mentioned so much lately (even MSDN > magazine in the MEAN stack articles) that I thought it would be a nice way > getting a bit sympathetic to JS and getting some practical skills. It would > be great to be able to "script up" a REST service quickly ... after all, > that's why scripting can be so great. I know someone who used Node.JS > services to fed native mobile services they wrote in-house (but I don't > know what tools he used). > > However, it all went of the rails once I reached 300+ files in 90+ > folders, using unfamiliar utilities, weird references, no IDE, no familiar > project structure, and worst all ... it didn't work and was not listening > on any port, and I had no idea how to debug it. > > I therefore maintain my claim that JavaScript and its huge ecosystem is > poisonous, for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I'm shocked > that large vendors and influential technical people are not raising loud > alarm bells at the direction JS is taking our industry. > > *Greg K* >
