I strongly disagree with that, "modern" web development values beautiful code over almost anything else, if that wasn't the case you could have one of your dev building a form in a few hours, instead they need tons of tools (react for example) that slow their development
Web programming and the web has separated developers too far from the hardware that actually runs the stuff and, as a result, we have built confusing towers of babel.js.
I mean, Javascript was originally made for developer ease over user reliability - and look at it now - it shows with the cacophony of NPM dependencies prone to "leftpad" style failures and the new frameworks every 6 months. All of this, of course, goes against one of the author's key points: "User experience, even over developer experience."
Unfortunately, I don't think the problem is solved by process but instead on re-education to compiled, reliable systems, made with a typing system designed to catch errors. Introducing more process and efficiency will never make a bicycle into a proper car.
We already have that in the form of TypeScript, but both left-pad and core-js were, for lack of better term, non-technical failures.
Only the most recent such case - is-promise - was purely a technical failure.
There's not much than can be done when the sole core maintainer of a popular library lands in a penal colony.
While an improvement Typescript is a far cry from the likes of Ada and doesn't really compare.
> There's not much than can be done when the sole core maintainer of a popular library lands in a penal colony.
Perhaps the solution is to not use Javascript, since it always forces you into an "ecosystem" of "frameworks" at every turn - and they are not cheap! Just another thing to throw on the stack. mb's be damned.
Given their respective popularities perhaps the point of diminishing returns was crossed somewhere?
> Perhaps the solution is to not use Javascript, since it always forces you into an "ecosystem" of "frameworks" at every turn - and they are not cheap! Just another thing to throw on the stack. mb's be damned.
This is becoming outdated information thanks to the likes of Svelte:
and Solid:
I would condition this to be:
> "modern" web development values beautiful code _that you can see_ over almost anything else
I wouldn't call apps that are run by transpiling code into another language so that it can be compiled into something else, that is packaged up and shipped around in a docker 'image' and then run in who-knows-how-many levels of virtualization in someone else's cloud, particularly beautiful.
I contrived a painful example, but if we're talking 'beauty' in terms of what you see in your IDE/text editor, then maybe you're right, but in terms of what an application is and how it's used/deployed? No way.