> Modern JavaScript applications aren't just a few scripts anymore — they're sprawling codebases with thousands of dependencies, complex module graphs, and extensive build pipelines.
This has been true for at least a decade.
The very next paragraph:
> JavaScript-based tools that were once "good enough" now struggle to keep up, leading to sluggish build times, laggy editor experiences, and frustratingly slow feedback loops.
The tools really weren't "good enough", even back then, by these metrics. JavaScript tooling has been slow and bloated on large codebases for just as long.
Keep the huge, complex business logic on the server whenever possible.
That doesn't work for webapps that are effectively entirely based on client side reactivity like Figma, though the list of projects that need to work like that is extremely low. Even for those style of apps I do wonder how far something like Phoenix LiveView might go towards the end goal.
Animal intelligence is often underestimated, (e.g. there's a famous test that shows that chimpanzee working memory is better than ours) but our use of language is qualitatively different from other animals. Some animals have rudimentary communication, but no other animal is capable (as far as we know) of recursive, infinitely variable language structure like us.
> spaghettification is also a non-issue, as long as the framework defines clear containers for spaghettis
Sorry, but I disagree strongly with this. When there is, inevitably, a bug that the LLM can't fix, someone's going to have to read all that spaghetti, and they'll curse whoever put it there. "clear containers for spaghetti" is a pipe dream, all abstractions leak, and the bug may very well be in the spaghetti. "Just start over" is unrealistic for large, complex apps.
Of course, if you really have a solution for this, that would be incredible.
nothing lives forever. software comes into life out of necessity, develops complexities, eventually becomes incomprehensible, obsolete and dead. it’s a natural cycle that we should work into the user experience, instead of defining it as a failure state that we need to “solve for”.
It's not unreasonable to briefly forget details like that, especially when you're dealing with a multi-language codebase where "how do I make a log statement?" requires a different pattern in each one.
> It's not unreasonable to briefly forget details like that, especially when you're dealing with a multi-language codebase where "how do I make a log statement?" requires a different pattern in each one.
You make my point for me.
When I wrote:
... I love working with people who understand what they
are doing when they do it.
This is not a judgement about coworker ability, skill, or integrity. It is instead a desire to work with people who ensure they have a reasonable understanding of what they are about to introduce into a system. This includes coworkers who reach out to team members in order achieve said understanding.
Another American holiday coming up with an equally useless name is Fourth of July. Nobody seems to have a problem with that name, and nobody I know calls it Independence Day. Neither Fourth of July or Juneteenth are great names out of context, but they both have histories behind them and can't be changed anymore.
Heck, Juneteenth is a better name, since it is not literally month+day.
I agree - if I was a student, I would be very tempted to use an LLM for this sort of coursework-irrelevant busywork assignment, especially if I had other work on my plate. It's not so hard to rationalize using it for this type of thing vs. an "actual" assignment, all due respect to the professor, who I'm sure means well
> Modern JavaScript applications aren't just a few scripts anymore — they're sprawling codebases with thousands of dependencies, complex module graphs, and extensive build pipelines.
This has been true for at least a decade.
The very next paragraph:
> JavaScript-based tools that were once "good enough" now struggle to keep up, leading to sluggish build times, laggy editor experiences, and frustratingly slow feedback loops.
The tools really weren't "good enough", even back then, by these metrics. JavaScript tooling has been slow and bloated on large codebases for just as long.