Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

I'm in the position of having written frameworks. I read that paragraph and though "Exactly! This is necessary for dynamic object binding using containers" etc. Nothing unusual at all. It depends upon context. As a professional I find it odd the OP brags about remaining ignorant of a common topic in his field.

View on HN

> I find it odd the OP brags about remaining ignorant of a common topic in his field.

Yeah, the entire post had this strange whiff of anti-intellectualism.

Simplicity is actually really difficult to achieve. The only anti-intellectualism is Angular offloading that burden on it's developers. There are many other binding frameworks that have put more effort into both their use and their documentation. Hell, in the time you've read this you could already be a ractive.js expert.

> Simplicity is actually really difficult to achieve. The only anti-intellectualism is Angular offloading that burden on it's developers.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

It's easy to not use a C-based language and forget that there are many fundamental patterns that are still applicable, even if they look different. The purpose and intent behind a pattern is generally more important than the actual name used or the code structure. The factory pattern defines what it does (essentially code that creates objects without the caller needing to know the details), not the syntax behind it.

I see this happen all the time, even in functional languages.

I think his point is that such patterns in JS are unnecessary and bureaucratic.

Sure; so are declarations, or manifests. You just shrug, type them in and continue. They certainly don't affect the programming process much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com