Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My hair always bristles a bit when I see plans to "eliminate JavaScript Framework Lock-in."

For a backend service, it doesn't matter if you use no framework or one or five, other than pain for your developers having to learn the complexity; storage is so cheap it's nearly free, executable RAM slightly less so, and the end-user doesn't care how complex your server is.

Frontend code gets pushed over a wire to your end-user. If you're using three overlapping frameworks to build one web service frontend purely because someone in your team likes Svelte and someone else likes React... that's a problem. You'll be pushing more bytes than you should to your end-users, and that cost doesn't scale the right way; in fact, the more popular your app, the more redundant bytes you'll be passing.

We don't want to enable multiple frameworks in the UI. We should be settling on one and committing everyone on the frontend team to using it (ideally lock-stepped to the same version of it) within each app-shaped thing we create as a frontend team.



Author here — I feel like I addressed this point in the article, no? Obviously using a zillion frameworks in your app is a bad idea, but there are a bunch of actual reasons that encapsulating and/or mixing frameworks might be useful:

- Gradually migrating from one framework to another

- Including interactive "islands" within a static or server-side rendered page

- Using a dependency only available in one framework from within another (this works best if the dependency framework has a small footprint — e.g. using Svelte within React is better than vice versa)


It isn't a standard HN post if it isn't claiming $new_technology will eliminate $old_technology.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: