| "You need almost all these tools in other environments -- they're just typically chosen for you in advanced." + I don't think anyone is complaining about what the tools do, or necessarily their quality. The fundamental complain is 'churn'. The stack you see today may be replaced in a year - moreover - it's really hard to tell where the community is going. There are few resources (or rather too many) that can tell you what 'works and what doesn't' etc.. Also - many of these problems should not exist in the first place, and kind of illustrate the underlying failures of the web-browser platform in the first place. Again - great stack. But it won't last long, and it's very expensive to churn. Recent comment at a JS meetup form some guy: "I just left a startup where I was the key Angular guy, it was all in Angular 1 - I have no idea who's going to support that now that I'm going considering everything is Angular 2 now". Reasonable assertion. Also - I'm not so sure the 'do one thing and do it well' theory is always an advantage. There are many solid platforms where things are really well curated by company ABC. I'd suggest that if they do their jobs well, it's better than a community approach. Obviously - community vs. monolith is not black and white, and there are advantages to each side, but it would be unwise I think to ignore the problems of constant churn. Another example - just at MS HQ in Montreal for a preso on React. 100 devs in the room were not particularly excited. They seemed more resigned to it than anything. The consensus was 'yet another thing'? I think there is really a big gap between those pro-shops on the cutting edge - and 'everyone else'. And React is by no means trivial. |