[mattmanser]

Funny, but it's not quite that complex.

I'm using React/Redux/Sagas/Webpack/etc. for the client, and Express (with ES6 and what have you)

Funny, but that sounds like the very definition of complex.

I particularly love the "etc." and "what have you" because your stack is so complex you can't even be bothered to type them all out.

[scottmf]

I don't see it as too different from "I'm using Rails, ActiveRecord, Sprockets, Ruby 2, CoffeeScript, etc".

Which stack do you prefer to use?

[mattmanser]

Why would you need to say you're using ActiveRecord or Ruby if you said you're using Rails? You've missed the point of the article.

Also, will everyone decide in 6 months times that, hmmm, you know what Ruby sucks and we should all start using BooRuubie next year instead?

Because I guarantee at the absolute minimum one of the technologies you mentioned will be out of favour this time next year.

Also, I can practically guarantee in a year's time when you come to do some maintenance work on that project and there's a bug and you google it, the code you find will be incompatible with what you've built.

Or someone new comes to setup the project and is googling about the config for something you mentioned, the article will be utterly wrong and will spend days just getting the damn thing to run.

[scottmf]

>Why would you need to say you're using ActiveRecord or Ruby if you said you're using Rails?

Exactly. "Rails" implies all of those other components. That's my point.

And your stack is relevant. I'm curious what simple stack you use, and how much more simple it is.

[pauljaworski]

You didn't answer his question. What stack do you prefer to use?

[mattmanser]

Purposefully, as it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion on whether a stack is complex or not.

[pauljaworski]

It is absolutely relevant, since you're criticising his stack. Even if it wasn't, you could still reply, but for some reason you won't. Hmm...

[mattmanser]

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood this discussion. I'm not saying mine is any better, we're simply discussing whether a stack is complex.

So what I use is irrelevant.

If you're so desperate to know what I've used, since 2004:

    - VB6
    - vb.net net webforms
    - old school vbscript + dynamic ajax
    - c# using xslt + ajax xml, without really using webforms
    - c# webforms
    - PHP wordpress
    - asp.net MVC
    - silverlight
    - rails
    - MVC + Web API with a jQuery/datatables/handlebars
    - MVC + Web API with a jQuery/jQuery-tmpl/jQuery-forms
    - Durandal with OData
    - knockout with a mix of MVC + WebAPI

Some playing with django and backbone and angular and laravel for my own projects too, but not particularly in anger.

To be frank, the worst one for unnecessary complexity, by a far, far, far, far way, was durandal. Pile of shit. React/angular definitely suffer from a similar over complexity.

Generally speaking, recently I haven't really chosen a stack, the last 4 projects I've worked on have all been past that phase when I joined.

When I have, it was 3 years ago and at the time I stuck with jQuery/datatables, at the time backbone was trendy and I hate any js framework which relies on methods for properties having been burnt by supporting a colleague's internally homebrewed jQuery-a-like with early template system that used that earlier in my career. Nightmare to debug.

[reitanqild]

JavaEE? Or spring boot?