Completely agree. Nuxt is intuitive - convention-over-configuration and auto-imports remove a ton of boilerplate. The key is treating it as an app framework, not a backend solution - within that scope, it handles modern SSR/SPA complexity.
I'm baffled by the doom-and-gloom reactions here.
Nuxt remains what it's always been: the best convention-over-configuration framework in existence. It's built on Vue which is opinionated as hell, and you get all the benefits of that.
The "vendor lock-in" concerns are frankly overblown. At the end of the day Nuxt produces artifacts you can deploy anywhere - AWS, Cloudflare, your own infrastructure, or yes, Vercel.
The alternatives (underfunded OSS maintainers burning out) are way worse than having a well-funded team with aligned incentives. If anything this validates that Nuxt is valuable enough for a major platform company to invest in.
I'll take that over watching great tools die from lack of resources.
Everything you say is now subject to change due to strategic decisions by a single entity that owns almost all horses in the race. The things you take for granted now can disappear tomorrow, no matter how many times they pinky promise not to.
Nuxt is great, but Chromium is great too. Yet, Google has become the driving force behind changes to the web platform, for better or worse. That’s not a desirable situation, and certainly not the only one: it’s not like there’s only a single company out there able to fund open source software. I desperately hope we, collectively, will figure out a better financing model in the future.
Don't trust cancelling your card either. I closed my account at Capital One, paid the final balance, and six months later I noticed a steep drop in my credit score. I had a $3 monthly charge that kept recurring even though I had closed my account.
Also, because my account was "closed," I didn't receive any statements notifying me that I was being charged. I only discovered this issue when my credit score dropped by 100 points.
Closing a personal credit card, in my experience, temporarily drops the score a few points and then it goes back to normal. It's a myth promulgated by banks to keep accounts open.
If so, that just raises the question: of what benefit is it to the banks to keep unused accounts open? The maintenance costs may be low, but they're still nonzero.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post. The "un"adoption of GUI frontend tools has nothing to do with job security. At best, it is a poor conspiracy theory.
There are great answers in these comments that provide good insight. This comment is not one of them.
As an interviewer, I don't ask this question but if I did then you could impress me by asking what a binary search tree is, then I would tell you, then you explain or write how you would do it.
Most of these interview questions aren't designed to be trivia. It's designed because your job IS implementation of technical and business problems.
They might not be trivia, but they're not presented in the same manner as someone would be doing on the job and/or the candidate isn't given the same access to tools they normally have when working and/or there's an 'on the spot' requirement to answer the question.
I don't store everything in my head anymore. I have a general understanding of the concept and a mental pointer in the form of the search term to put in google to refresh how to implement the thing.
I have to implement 10-20 concepts across 5-10 languages or APIs or technologies every single day usually, my brain doesn't work like a database where every record that's inserted is there permanently until I update or delete it. The stuff I'm not using regularly gets fuzzier and fuzzier and goes back to "general concept mode" if I'm not actively using it.
So when someone asks me to write a full iOS app during an interview when I've been making Microsoft business apps for the past year, even though I've written and released multiple full iOS apps at previous jobs, I can't just sit down and produce a perfectly working app like a robot, especially if I didn't have much time to prepare for the interview (that recruiter contacted me three days earlier and didn't tell me he set up an interview until 8pm the night before).
With technical questions it's even worse, because I could have been spending days and days refreshing my knowledge but you happen to choose one of the things I didn't think to refresh my brain on. And so I waffle on the answer and you go "oooh, looks like he doesn't know anything". No, I've got a full decade of making apps and software, in lead roles, in multiple industries with a bunch of different technologies. I know plenty. I just didn't have that question fresh in my head.
Then you pass, and lose out on someone you would have benefited from greatly in favor of the recent grad student that hasn't made anything but toy programs yet got tested on all those concepts within the past six months so it's fresh in their heads.
That's usually not how it works though. You're more likely to be laughed out of the room for asking such a silly question, despite the fact the (presumably technical) interviewer could do no better without the teacher's copy in front of them.
An aside, but I think interviews like this should allow Internet connections. Give the candidate a minute to look something up and digest it in their own way. It should be obvious whether they'll get the concept or just recite the Wikipedia definition. Just as important is how they do their research, and how they draw connections between foreign and familiar concepts given a blueprint of the former.
"As an interviewer, I don't ask this question but if I did then you could impress me by asking what a binary search tree is, then I would tell you, then you explain or write how you would do it."
Maybe. Or you would scoff, turn your nose up, mutter "noob" under your breath, and move on, knowing you're not going to hire me.
I'm sure you yourself would do as you said, but I can't be so sure about random interviewer person.
I can relate to your last paragraph. I used to (and still) source dive to find good workarounds to library issues. But I never asked for permission, I just did it. I also delivered on time.
Nowadays, I'm a team lead and I am guilty of telling people "not to go there" (about half the time). It's funny because it actually conflicts with my opinion that I want people to dig in! The choice to "dig in" is a personal risk/reward. It's a risk that an engineer must take while practicing good time management. Asking your manager is akin to making them take that risk for you (the risk of wasted time, passing deadlines, etc).
My crappy advice is... ask for forgiveness, not for permission. If you're a good engineer, you'll come out on top!
I don't disagree with you, but I also think there are situations where (particularly if you aren't privy to the big picture) it's a good idea to have some kind of sounding board to run things off of before diving/jumping in, though that may be a bit tangential to the point at hand.
Maybe more to the point, I don't think my behavior at the time was an attempt at pushing the risk up the chain as much as it was a manifestation of fear/anxiety that I'd somehow be outside of company expectations/norms or would end up spending a bunch of time working around/fixing something that had already been solved in a way that I, as a newer employee, just didn't know about.
