[austin-cheney]

> Not sure how you avoid reinventing any of the component frameworks.

You don't do framework nonsense. That is all there is to it.

For most people writing JavaScript for employment it is absolutely impossible to imagine any universe where a couple of lines of code could be written without something that looks like a framework. That is not a limitation of the language, but rather a limitation of the given developer's imagination. The problem is thus a person problem and not a technology problem.

I do not use innerHTML because that is string parsing, and one of my critical performance steps is to avoid parsing from strings, except JSON.parse when needed.

[rudi-c]

When you're writing only a "couple lines of code", you can do pretty much anything you want. There's no real tradeoffs to discuss except in a theoretical sense, because the stakes are so small.

If the app being built is "large" (which I understand to mean, has high essential complexity), then those tradeoffs matter a lot. If the app is built by a team instead of an individual, the people problems become significant. Those can very well be turned into a technology problem. The technology (framework in this discussion) can be used, among many other things, to establish a consistent way of solving the problems in the application, which alleviates many people problems.

[austin-cheney]

> When you're writing only a "couple lines of code", you can do pretty much anything you want. There's no real tradeoffs to discuss except in a theoretical sense, because the stakes are so small.

The JavaScript logic in the browser is comparatively small compared to the total application. This is absolutely more true when you remove the bloat imposed by a large framework.

Frameworks do not exist to alleviate problems for the developer. They exist to help the employer with candidate selection and training elimination to expedite hiring and firing. I can understand why a developer who is utterly reliant on the framework to do their job might think otherwise, which is a capability/dependence concern.

[rudi-c]

That you believe frameworks were invented to serve employers is a cynical point of view. I'm sorry for whatever bad experience you've had with the frameworks or people using them that caused you to develop this viewpoint.

A developer choosing to use a framework doesn't mean they are reliant on it, any more than choosing a particular language, library, text editor, tool, etc. It simply means they decided it was a helpful way to accomplish their goal, whether that's to save time, or establish consistency, eliminate categories of problems, avoid re-inventing the wheel, etc.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but you're coming off as incredibly arrogant with your strong claim that frameworks are used by those who don't know better. It's easy on the internet to vaguely gesture at "developers", but most of us are individual who've built software with real users among other demonstrated accomplishments. Strong claims require strong evidence, I hope you have the arguments to back it up.

[austin-cheney]

I hear the exact same self absorbed reasoning on other subjects from my autistic child almost daily. The psychological term is fragile ego.

For example: It’s not that the developer reliant on the framework is less than wonderful. It’s that everyone who differs in opinion is obviously wrong and/or arrogant, because the given developer cannot fathom being less than wonderful.