[quantadev]

> Not a single file codebase.

Yes it is. App.js is all the code there is. You can't count the two other files with 10 lines each. lol. Let's be honest here.

And yeah for a tiny toy project like this you can get away with having zero design, zero architecture, zero object models, zero classes, and sure since everything is zero, we can throw in "Zero TypeScript" and "Zero Frameworks". Looks like some high-schooler's first ever coding project.

[baobabKoodaa]

> App.js is all the code there is

No, it's not. Chatbot.js is 3400 LOC.

There's literally only 4 JS files in the whole repo and you couldn't be bothered to check how much code they have? Even after I told the other guy who made the same false claim "no, it's not a single file codebase"?

Jesus you people are insufferable. So obnoxiously confident while being wrong about easily verifiable facts.

> tiny toy project

Huh? 99% of web development is about rendering text and images. This project is moving your mouse inside a web browser & provides a plausible chat experience without a language model. That's more ambitious than just about any actual work project I've seen.

[quantadev]

Even considering chatbot.js, it's still a small enough toy project to just barely get by without type safety. I don't consider a project "large" until it's in the 30K to 50K LOC at least, where it becomes impossible to literally remember where each use of any given variable is. Type Safety catches most typos at build time, and also allows ease of refactoring. Only these small projects can get by without type safety, but EVEN the small projects DO benefit from catching errors at build time. It's just a self-foot-shoot to find bugs at runtime instead of build time.

[baobabKoodaa]

The question in this thread is not TypeScript vs JavaScript. It's framework vs no-framework. Specifically, is it possible - possible at all - to create an interactive web app without frameworks - one that isn't "just a document" or "brochure-ware". I've demonstrated pretty clearly that yes it is possible. You people just keep shifting the goalposts further and further... Now it doesn't count unless it's 50K LoC? As if unnecessary complexity was some kind of inherent good.

[quantadev]

I never saw anyone on this thread deny that JS CAN be used without frameworks. As a developer since before the internet even existed I've written probably at least two to four million lines of JS in my life, so I'm well aware.

What people are saying is that for LARGE projects you NEED a framework. And your app is tiny. It's got like two source files. So it's just an example of a tiny project getting by without a framework. I have a couple of those currently myself, because I don't need a framework for them. They're just HTML+CSS+JS.

[baobabKoodaa]

> And your app is tiny. It's got like two source files.

If the same app had been written by a typical team of React devs, it would be >1000 source files and 50K LoC. That's not an argument against my approach, it's an argument in favor of it.

[palmfacehn]

The SPA version would unmanageable without the latest 4th generation JS build tools. Spend an afternoon reading the manual for the configs. Watch the output of 'pnpm list' break your terminal environment when you try piping it through 'less'.

[quantadev]

You have it exactly backwards. Since React does all the DOM updates automatically, my massive project, with 100s of thousands of TypeScript LOC, has zero DOM calls in it. lol.

[baobabKoodaa]

> I never saw anyone on this thread deny that JS CAN be used without frameworks [...]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42282054

"brochure-ware"

B-R-O-C-H-U-R-E-W-A-R-E

[quantadev]

He's right. You have a project with two source files in it. That's basically not at any kind of scale he was talking about, and is easily classified as brochure-ware, from an architectural standpoint, simply because there's no architecture to it at all. Just a monolithic file.

[em-bee]

the expletive is unnecesary.

[baobabKoodaa]

Point taken. Edited.