DEV Community

Cover image for Concepts behind modern frameworks
Alex Lohr
Alex Lohr

Posted on • Updated on

Concepts behind modern frameworks

Many beginners ask "which framework should I learn?" and "How much JS or TS do I need to learn before a framework?" - countless opinionated articles go into promoting the advantages of the author's preferred framework or library, instead of demonstrating the readers the concepts behind them to allow for an informed decision. So let us get the second question out of the way first:

"How much JS/TS to learn before a framework?"

As much as allows you to understand the concepts they are based on. You will need knowledge of the basic data types, functions, basic operators and of the document object model (DOM), which is the representation of your HTML and CSS inside your JS. While everything beyond that will not hurt, it is not strictly required to become proficient with a framework or library.

If you are a complete beginner, JS for cats might be a good resource for your first steps. Keep going until you feel confident, then continue until you stop feeling confident again. That's when you know enough JS/TS and can move on to a framework. The rest you can learn on the go.

"Which concepts do you mean?"

  • State
  • Effects
  • Memoization
  • Templating and rendering

All modern frameworks derive their functionality from these concepts.

State

State is just the data powering your application. It may be on a global level, for a larger part of the application, or for a single component. Let us take a simple counter as an example. The count it keeps is the state. We can read the state and write to it to increase the count.

The simplest representation is usually a variable containing the data that our state consists of:

let count = 0;
const increment = () => { count++; };
const button = document.createElement('button');
button.textContent = count;
button.addEventListener('click', increment);
document.body.appendChild(button);
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

But this code has a problem: changes to count, like those made by increment, are not updating the text content of the button. We could manually update everything, but that doesn't scale well for more complex use cases.

The ability for count to update its users is called reactivity. This works by subscribing and re-running the subscribed parts of your application to updates.

Almost every modern front-end framework and library has a way to manage state reactively. There are three parts to the solution, and at least one of them or a mix is employed:

  • Observables / Signals
  • Reconciliation of immutable updates
  • Transpilation

Observables / Signals

Observables are basically structures that allow to read via a function that subscribes the readers. The subscribers are then re-run on update:

const state = (initialValue) => ({
  _value: initialValue,
  get: function() {
    /* subscribe */;
    return this._value; 
  },
  set: function(value) {
    this._value = value;
    /* re-run subscribers */;
  }
});
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

One of the first uses of this concept was in knockout, which used the same function with and without arguments for write/read access.

This pattern is currently seeing a revival as signals, for example in Solid.js and preact signals, but the same pattern is used under the hood of Vue and Svelte. RxJS, which powers the reactive layer of Angular, is an extension of this principle beyond simple state, but one could argue that its ability to model complexity is a whole arsenal of guns aimed at your feet. Solid.js also comes with further abstractions of these signals in the form of stores (objects that can be manipulated through a setter) and mutables (objects that can be used like normal JS objects or the state in Vue to handle nested state objects.

Reconciliation of immutable states

Immutability means that if the property of an object changes, the whole object reference must change, so a simple comparison of references can easily detect if there are changes, which is what the reconciler does.

const state1 = {
  todos: [{ text: 'understand immutability', complete: false }],
  currentText: ''
};
// updating the current text:
const state2 = {
  todos: state1.todos,
  currentText: 'understand reconciliation'
};
// adding a to-do:
const state3 = {
  todos: [
    state.todos[0],
    { text: 'understand reconciliation', complete: true }
  ],
  currentText: ''
};

// this breaks immutability:
state3.currentText = 'I am not immutable!';
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

As you can see, references of unchanged items are re-used. If the reconciler detects different object references, it runs all components using the state (props, memos, effects, context) again. Since the read access is passive, this requires the manual specification of dependencies to reactive values.

Obviously, you are not defining state that way. You either construct it from existing properties or use a so-called reducer. A reducer is a function that takes one state and returns another one.

This pattern is used by react and preact. It lends itself to being used with a vDOM, which we will explore later when templating is described.

Not every framework uses its vDOM to make the state fully reactive. Mithril.JS, for example, updates from state changes after the events set in the component; otherwise you have to trigger m.redraw() manually.

Transpilation

Transpilation is a build step that rewrites our code to make it run on older browsers or give it extra abilities; in this case, the technique is employed to change a simple variable into a part of a reactive system.

Svelte is based on a transpiler that also powers their reactive system from seemingly simple variable declaration and access.

As an aside, Solid.js uses transpilation, but not for its state, only for the templating.

Effects

In most cases, we need to do more with our reactive state than deriving from it and render it into the DOM. We have to manage side effects, which are all things that happen due to state changes beyond updates to the view (though some frameworks like Solid.js treat view changes as effects as well).

Remember the first example from state where the subscription handling was intentionally left out? Let us fill this in to handle effects as a reaction to updates:

const context = [];

const state = (initialValue) => ({
  _subscribers: new Set(),
  _value: initialValue,
  get: function() {
    const current = context.at(-1);
    if (current) { this._subscribers.add(current); }
    return this._value;
  },
  set: function(value) {
    if (this._value === value) { return; }
    this._value = value;
    this._subscribers.forEach(sub => sub());
  }
});

const effect = (fn) => {
  const execute = () => {
    context.push(execute);
    try { fn(); } finally { context.pop(); }
  };
  execute();
};
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This is basically a simplification of the reactive state in preact signals or Solid.js without error handling and state mutation pattern (using a function that receives the previous value and returns the next), but that would be easy to add.

It allows us to make the previous example reactive:

const count = state(0);
const increment = () => count.set(count.get() + 1);
const button = document.createElement('button');
effect(() => {
  button.textContent = count.get();
});
button.addEventListener('click', increment);
document.body.appendChild(button);
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

☝ Try out the above two code blocks in an empty page using your developer tools.

In most cases, the frameworks allow for different timings to let the effects run before, during or after rendering the DOM.

Memoization

Memoization means caching of values computed from state, to be updated when the state it is derived from changes. It is basically an effect that returns a derived state.

In frameworks that re-run their component functions, like react and preact, this allows to opt out parts of the components again when the state it depends on does not change.

For other frameworks, it is the opposite: it allows you to opt in parts of the component to reactive updates, while caching the previous computation.

For our simple reactive system, memo looks like this:

const memo = (fn) => {
  let memoized;
  effect(() => {
    if (memoized) {
      memoized.set(fn());
    } else {
      memoized = state(fn());
    }
  });
  return memoized.get;
};
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Templating and rendering

Now that we have state in pure, derived and cached form, we want to show it to the user. In our example, we used the DOM directly to add a button and update its text content.

To be more developer-friendly, almost all modern frameworks support some domain-specific language to write something similar to the desired output inside your code. Even though there are different flavors, like .jsx, .vue or .svelte files, it all comes down to a representation of the DOM in code that resembles HTML, so that basically

<div>Hello, World</div>

// in your JS
// becomes in your HTML:

<div>Hello, World</div>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

"Where do I put my state?" you may ask. Excellent question. In most cases, {} are used to express dynamic content, both in attributes and around nodes.

The most used templating language extension to JS is undoubtedly JSX. For react, it is compiled to plain JavaScript in a way that allows it to create a virtual representation of the DOM, an internal view state called virtual document object model or vDOM for short.

This is based on the premise that creating objects is much, much faster than accessing the DOM, so if you can replace the latter with the current, you save time. However, if you either have numerous DOM changes in any case or create countless objects for no changes, the benefits of this solution are easily turned into a disadvantage that has to be circumvented through memoization.

// original code
<div>Hello, {name}</div>

// transpiled to js
createElement("div", null, "Hello, ", name);

// executed js
{
  "$$typeof": Symbol(react.element),
  "type": "div",
  "key": null,
  "ref": null,
  "props": {
    "children": "Hello, World"
  },
  "_owner": null
}

// rendered vdom
/* HTMLDivElement */<div>Hello, World</div>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

JSX is not limited to react, though. Solid, for example, uses its transpiler to change the code more drastically:

// 1. original code
<div>Hello, {name()}</div>

// 2. transpiled to js
const _tmpl$ = /*#__PURE__*/_$template(`<div>Hello, </div>`, 2);
(() => {
  const _el$ = _tmpl$.cloneNode(true),
    _el$2 = _el$.firstChild;
  _$insert(_el$, name, null);
  return _el$;
})();

// 3. executed js code
/* HTMLDivElement */<div>Hello, World</div>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

While the transpiled code may look daunting at first, it is rather simple to explain what happens here. First, the template with all the static parts is created, then it is cloned to create a new instance of its contents and the dynamic parts are added and wired to update on state changes.

Svelte goes even further and transpiles not only the templates, but also the state.

// 1. original code
<script>
let name = 'World';
setTimeout(() => { name = 'you'; }, 1000);
</script>

<div>Hello, {name}</div>

// 2. transpiled to js
/* generated by Svelte v3.55.0 */
import {
        SvelteComponent,
        append,
        detach,
        element,
        init,
        insert,
        noop,
        safe_not_equal,
        set_data,
        text
} from "svelte/internal";

function create_fragment(ctx) {
        let div;
        let t0;
        let t1;

        return {
                c() {
                        div = element("div");
                        t0 = text("Hello, ");
                        t1 = text(/*name*/ ctx[0]);
                },
                m(target, anchor) {
                        insert(target, div, anchor);
                        append(div, t0);
                        append(div, t1);
                },
                p(ctx, [dirty]) {
                        if (dirty & /*name*/ 1) set_data(t1, /*name*/ ctx[0]);
                },
                i: noop,
                o: noop,
                d(detaching) {
                        if (detaching) detach(div);
                }
        };
}

function instance($$self, $$props, $$invalidate) {
        let name = 'World';

        setTimeout(
                () => {
                        $$invalidate(0, name = 'you');
                },
                1000
        );

        return [name];
}

class Component extends SvelteComponent {
        constructor(options) {
                super();
                init(this, options, instance, create_fragment, safe_not_equal, {});
        }
}

export default Component;

// 3. executed JS code
/* HTMLDivElement */<div>Hello, World</div>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

There are exceptions. In Mithril.js, for example, while it is possible to use JSX, you are encouraged to write JS:

// 1. original JS code
const Hello = {
  name: 'World',
  oninit: () => setTimeout(() => {
    Hello.name = 'you';
    m.redraw();
  }, 1000),
  view: () => m('div', 'Hello, ' + Hello.name + '!')
};

// 2. executed JS code
/* HTMLDivElement */<div>Hello, World</div>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

While most people will find the developer experience lacking, others prefer full control over their code. Depending on which issue they aim to solve, the lack of a transpilation step might even be beneficial.

Many other frameworks allow for usage without transpilation, though it is rarely recommended like that.

"And what framework or library should I learn now?"

I have some good news and some bad news for you.

The bad news is: there is no silver bullet. No framework will be much better than all others in every single aspect. Each one of them has their advantages and compromises. React has its hook rules, Angular a lack of simple signals, Vue lacks backwards compatibility and Svelte don't scale too well, Solid.js forbids destructuring and Mithril.js is not really reactive, just to name a few.

The good news is: there is no wrong choice – at least, unless the requirements of a project are really limited, be it in terms of bundle size or performance. Every framework will do its job. Some may require working around their design decisions, which might slow you down a bit, but you should be able to get a working result in any case.

That being said, going without a framework might be a viable choice, too. Many projects are spoiled by overuse of JavaScript, when static pages with a sprinkle of interactivity would have done the job as well.

Now that you know the concepts that are applied by these frameworks and libraries, choose those which are the best fit for your current task. Do not be afraid to switch frameworks in your next project. It is not necessary to learn all of them.

If you try a new framework, one of the things I found most helpful is to connect to its community, be it on social media, discord, github or elsewhere. They can tell you which approaches are idiomatic for their framework, which will help you to get better solutions faster.

"Come on, you must have a personal preference!"

If your main goal is to become employed, I would suggest learning react. If you want a great experience of effortless performance and control, try Solid.js; you might meet me on Solid's Discord.

But please bear in mind that all other choices are equally valid. You should not choose a framework because I say so, instead use one that works best for you.

If you got through the whole text, thank you for your patience. I hope it was helpful for you. Leave a comment while you're here and have a nice day!

Latest comments (61)

Collapse
 
efpage profile image
Eckehard

Hy Alex,

before mentioning any framework, we should ask for the task you need to solve. I suppose, it depends much on the kind and size of your application, if a framework plays well or not. For a large scale app with millions of users, the perfect tooling might be different than for a private homepage.

So, possibly we should first ask for the task before recommending something.

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

It gets even more interesting if you go another step back and ask which properties of the large-scale app or the private homepage are significant factors for the choice?

Then you find that the number of concurrent views, the complexity of interactions, the amount of changes at the same time and the performance of the clients you expect become very interesting.

For example, a shopping homepage will be much faster if it shuns MVC frameworks and instead start out as MPA with only the minimal required interactions. A conference app on the other hand wouldn't work as anything but an SPA.

Collapse
 
efpage profile image
Eckehard

But is there any real measure? How much performance do you really need?

Most people will not have so many friends that the number of concurrent views really matters. And if their hompage is boring slow, this will possibly not a result of the wrong framework but of the wrong provider.

Your initial question was: Many beginners ask "which framework should I learn?"

My first questions would be:

a) What do you want to do
b) How much time do you have to learn

I assume, there is also a big difference in the performance, how long it takes to get a "beginner" up and running. Maybe he or she can do the job in Svelte after 2 weeks, but doing the same in React will take 2 month, which is the better choice?

Thread Thread
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

a) might not be a coherent answer like "I want to build my own homepage". I would expect it to be much more complex, for example "I want to build my own homepage that serves as example for my skills if I apply for a job that requires me to build much more complex, performant, scalable apps, since those pay better."

Also, if you need much longer to learn react than svelte, there's something wrong with your learning material. The way those frameworks handle their tasks are extremely different, but the tasks (receiving interactions, managing state, rendering view) are very much the same.

Collapse
 
3p1l profile image
LMugget

Great article, very enlightening.

Collapse
 
amustafa16421 profile image
Mustafa_A • Edited

… instead of demonstrating the readers the concepts behind them to allow for an informed decision

Great root-cause analysis followed by a great elaboration.
With that you lived up to the implicit promise of your introduction.
Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed it very much.

Collapse
 
magicwalter15 profile image
magicwalter15

This is a really nice article... I enjoyed reading it

Collapse
 
fruntend profile image
fruntend

Сongratulations 🥳! Your article hit the top posts for the week - dev.to/fruntend/top-10-posts-for-f...
Keep it up 👍

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

Thank you!

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

You probably mean Mitosis? An interesting project, but I haven't found the time to take a closer look. Maybe for the next article.

Collapse
 
merc_opolo profile image
Merc Opolo

Good post

Collapse
 
tleperou profile image
Thomas Lepérou

get fun and explore amazing possibilities --> Qwik

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr • Edited

Or Astro. Or something else. Or go vanilla. The point here is not to promote a single framework, but to help understand them good enough to help distinguish marketing bullshit from verified claims.

Collapse
 
andyobtiva profile image
Andy Maleh • Edited

In most business apps, none of the JS frameworks even matter. The interactions are simple and fast enough that all discussions of JS frameworks are moot. It would be much better to learn software engineering skills instead, to know when to use the right tool for the job for a specific project instead of over-engineering with cookie cutter techniques like JS frameworks (usually lower level developers who don’t question anything fall blindly for them).

Also, what you describe as “reactivity” is actually known since way before JS frameworks were created as the Observer Design Pattern (aka Listener), which is a fundamental part of the MVC (Model-View-Component) Architectural Pattern. JS frameworks didn’t invent these concepts. They’ve been part of the web (e.g. onclick) since the beginning and they’ve been around since the first GUI showed up in Smalltalk-MVC in the 80s. All what these JS frameworks (e.g. React) do is mimic MVC in JavaScript, that’s all. Components is an ancient concept too (aka Software Modules) that was always used to build desktop GUI apps.

Anyways, if you have to think in a low level way away from reality in terms of states, hooks, and effects, then your code is so over engineered and distanced from reality that you already lost half the battle in meeting business goals in a web app in a short amount of time with a lower budget.

And, if you have to worry about pointless restrictions like immutable values or static typing in TypeScript, then you’re also encumbering development by 50% at least. Most of the benefits of such techniques compared to not using, never really materialize, and only proper software engineers with good experience could easily navigate around them by focusing on what’s practical, not theoretical, thus developing much more productively. Many people who fall for such bad techniques do so because they’ve read about them in a blog article or heard of them in a lecture, but blindly accepted them without questioning anything or thinking for themselves. And, they didn’t try to compare using them to not using them and seeing if the latter resulted in better productivity. Again, proper software engineers who avoid immutability and static typing can deliver faster without any real problems assuming they design their JavaScript with proper object oriented design and design patterns.

Also, by dropping even lower to the level of math by using reducers when we’re building standard business apps that have little math except in the backend, you also end up with code that is very distanced from reality and is thus much more expensive to maintain. Math techniques must only be used for math domain problems. Otherwise, it is better to use patterns like MVC and object oriented abstractions that act like simple encapsulated real concepts without being forced to work with cumbersome low level things like states, hooks, and effects, which make code 4 times more complicated at least than necessary.

React code is garbage , but most of its brainwashed users are like frogs getting boiled gradually without realizing they are getting burned by all the extra unnecessary expensive code they’re writing (probably because they look at others around them who happen to be boiling frogs too, so they think everything is normal instead of thinking for themselves and realizing the truth). It’s sadly a BIFI culture, meaning By Idiots For Idiots. None of its users have the intelligence to question things outside the box, so they just worship the overlords of React at Facebook (a very unethical company) while getting owned by their own idiocy in very large numbers. In fact, some of them literally think that a more popular technology is a better technology and that if a technology comes from a giant like Facebook, then it has to be good (the Facebook web app obviously sucks though and everybody knows it). That’s how they choose technologies, not by thinking for themselves. It’s very sad. That’s because in fact, more often than not, more popular technologies are popular because the majority of mediocre developers could use them as opposed to the minority of excellent software engineers. So, mediocre work is produced by them that hurts deadlines, expenses, and quality for customers compared to excellent work produced without them by the minority of excellent software engineers out there.

But, that raises the value of true software engineers who could write 10% of the code or less and get the job done much more cheaply, on time, and with higher quality, without using any JS frameworks.

Collapse
 
nevcos profile image
Filipe Costa • Edited

True software engineers are like those guys that build an entire house with just an hammer in a couple of days.
They are strong, fast, don't require fancy tools (apart from VIM), they never do mistakes and they are never wrong. Actuality they don't even need tests because they really don't create any type of bugs.
And if a true software engineer decides he can do a much better React in 10 days, with a single hand... 🦄

I'm doing frontend code for 20 years and I can tell you that you don't really know what you're talking about.
The amount of code you need to implement a complex SPA with or without a framework has no possible comparison... Not talking about maintenance and performance.

Regarding Typescript, I've done very big projects with and without it, and it's really hard to understand who thinks Typescript doesn't help in large projects.

I understand some of your frustrations, namely with React, but it looks like you're rejecting any type of innovation just because you're afraid of something and that's generally not good for your professional development.

Fortunately there are good frameworks out there, not perfect... yet... But very far away from the time we needed to update the DOM state manually, or just recreate all the elements on each update.

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

Thank you for your criticism. Let me address your points one by one.

In most business apps, none of the JS frameworks even matter.

Last time I checked, Jira, BitBucket, Slack, all business apps, are using JS frameworks to make their front-end development scalable. And since an increasing number of business apps are going the SaaS route into the cloud, they are going to matter even more.

The interactions are simple and fast enough that all discussions of JS frameworks are moot.

Most of the interactions may look like simple events, but accessible solutions that work both on mobile and desktop are sometimes more of a challenge than a back-end engineer like yourself could even imagine.

You can do all of this with vanilla JS (I've done this before and even mentioned it as an option at the end), but it's much harder to do so in a reusable, composable way outside of a framework.

It would be much better to learn software engineering skills instead, to know when to use the right tool for the job for a specific project instead of over-engineering with cookie cutter techniques like JS frameworks (usually lower level developers who don’t question anything fall blindly for them).

While some people needlessly jumped on the PWA-train where a MPA would have done a better job, I wouldn't say those were in the majority. Most of us have a background in full-stack. And there are certainly use cases that warrant the development of a web app with a JS framework. So I'd say this is a bit of a prejudice from you.

And, if you have to worry about pointless restrictions like immutable values or static typing in TypeScript, then you’re also encumbering development by 50% at least.

With JS frameworks, you almost always have a choice. Only Angular forces you to use TypeScript, everywhere else, it's an option. Immutability is only required in reconciler-based frameworks, because they need the reference comparison for their state-tree walkers.

In larger projects, the benefits of TS outweighs the overhead by far. So I have to assume you never saw a large-scale frontend project from the inside.

Also, what you describe as “reactivity” is actually known way before JS was invented as the Observer Design Pattern...

This is as true as it would be confusing to the beginners this post was aimed at to gain a basic understanding of the common principles of front-end frameworks.

Anyways, if you have to think in a low level way away from reality in terms of states, hooks, and effects, then your code is so over engineered and distanced from reality that you already lost half the battle in meeting business goals in a web app in a short amount of time with a lower budget.

Point taken on the over engineering in some cases (I'm looking at RxJS specifically), but isn't it strange that people still save time and effort by using frameworks and their ecosystems? Maybe there are other factors playing a major role in this case. Maybe your point of view is to one-dimensional.

Again, proper software engineers who avoid immutability and static typing can deliver faster

You should definitely have a look at Solid.js. It avoids immutability in favor of fine-grained reactivity and static typing is supported yet optional. It's right there in my article. You might have missed it.

Though static types seems to become all the rage in proper systems development too, with Rust having an elegant and powerful type system.

Also, by dropping even lower to the level of math by using reducers when we’re building standard business apps that have little math except in the backend, you also end up with code that is very distanced from reality and is thus much more expensive to maintain.

You don't even need to use reducers in react, they are an option. I also see them as unnecessarily boilerplate, so no argument from me here.

...object oriented abstractions that act like simple encapsulated real concepts without being forced to work with cumbersome low level things like states, hooks, and effects, which make code 4 times more complicated at least than necessary.

Strange. If I look at efficient functional solutions, it becomes apparent that OOP abstractions are mostly unnecessary overhead, which easily make code 4 times more complicated at least than necessary. Perspective can be a powerful thing.

React code is garbage...

I've had to read though the code of react. There's certainly a lot of unused code in there, but it is not garbage, but more the reason that react hasn't been completely abysmal in terms of backwards compatibility. Yes, the react team has taken some questionable design decisions, but there are always reasons behind them – like having also to work with native and some internal legacy projects.

Granted, react is no work of art, but it's also not garbage It's a work of work. And yes, Meta is bad. So what? You can still switch to preact at any point.

But, that raises the value of true software engineers who could write 10% of the code or less and get the job done much more cheaply, on time, and with higher quality, without using any JS frameworks.

Apart from the no true Scotsman fallacy here, that would work if you could hire those by the dozens. You can hire react devs much cheaper and scale up and down the whole development process using react/Vue/etc. developers instead and they're much cheaper and easier to work with, because few of them are opinionated as heck and too full of themselves than would allow to team them up at all.

I've worked in front-end with and without frameworks for over 25 years. At the end of the day, it's a business decision. Yes, most businesses will initially fall for the lie of synergy effects of reusable code, but will stay for the truth of scalable development.

As I remarked at the end, frameworks are no silver bullets – but they do have their merits. And if you understand the concepts behind them, it may help you to make better choices – even the one to forgo a framework and go vanilla instead. That's what this article is about, a point that seemed to have gone completely over your head.

That being said, it would be interesting to read how you as a "real" developer would think front-end development should work.

Collapse
 
artydev profile image
artydev

Very useful thank you

Collapse
 
b1bxonty profile image
b1bxonty

very helpful

Collapse
 
sandorturanszky profile image
Sandor | tutorialhell.dev

Are you saying that it's all you need to master to become efficient with lib or fw?

What about the fundamental JavaScript concepts eg. Call Stack and Event Loop?
Asynchronous Communication?
OOP and functional prgramming in JS?
Scope, closure?
Error handling?

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

I don't think that you will stop feeling confident until you started to understand these at least partially.

Usually, you start with ignorance about a topic, then you gain a sufficient superficial understanding to feel confident, then after some time you learn about the concepts you didn't know that you didn't know and your confidence is replaced by more understanding.

Collapse
 
sandorturanszky profile image
Sandor | tutorialhell.dev

I can only say that this basic knowledge is a must for working with frameworks. I should add design patterns too. Sadly, none of this was mentioned in your article.

One should learn the underlying technology before using tools built with this technology. My takaway after 12 years in FE.

Thread Thread
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr • Edited

25 years of FE taught me that most people are using only about ½ of the underlying technology most of the time anyways – but depending on your use cases, these might be different parts.

Also, I wanted to keep the part intentionally short and encouraging, that's why I remarked on overcoming your initial confidence instead of mentioning a discouragingly long list explicit skills.

Lastly, a lot of people use their favorite patterns like a hammer, even if their task is to fix some screws. Yes, learning patterns can help, but every framework usually already comes with its own set of idiomatic patterns that are more important than learning about a factory pattern that you're never going to use with that framework.

Thread Thread
 
sandorturanszky profile image
Sandor | tutorialhell.dev

That makes me even more sad. You're set for disaster if you don't know JavaScript being a FE dev.

Not using is not the same as not knowing about what is actually happening under the hood. We don't use frameworks because we need shortcuts.

Thread Thread
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr • Edited

Do you know 100% of JavaScript? You can answer every question of ydkjs-exercises.com/ correct without thinking twice? I can't do that, and I'm longer in that game than you. I'm still confident that I can solve every front-end problem even without a framework.

To start with a framework, you don't need 100%. Getting over your initial confidence means you are usually somewhere around 50-60% of the language and its concepts and the rest that is important to work with the framework, you can pick up on the go.

We don't need gatekeepers for frameworks. Our community should be inclusive, not exklusive. In due time, every front-end developer should master their tools, but I don't expect anybody from waiting to use a framework before they mastered JS.

And weren't you basically saying the same?

Thread Thread
 
sandorturanszky profile image
Sandor | tutorialhell.dev

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Firstly, I am not talking about your knowledge and experience. I am talking about a mere fact that this article is not mentioning important JS fundamentals and encourages devs to jump on FW unprepared. It's a huge red flag for any developer.

*Facebook hires devs without React knowledge but with JS knowledge because they believe if you know JS, you will figure out React. But not the other way around. *

I only know that I know very little, but I do know JS fundamentals and this knowledge has helped me countless times with being efficient with any JS based tool.

There is no way to be proficient with a framework if you don't know the fundamentals of a language, be it JS or any other language.

Thread Thread
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

You're still not getting the point. If you overcome your initial confidence, by then you will have learned, yet not mastered JS. That's how learning works: 1. You get an initial understanding and feel confident, 2. You actually learn and lose previous confidence and 3. You master it and become confident again.

By including a long checklist, I would have increased the length of this already long article and would have discouraged beginners. Do you really think that's worth it? You call yourself a mentor, don't you?

Thread Thread
 
sandorturanszky profile image
Sandor | tutorialhell.dev

No need to include long lists - only include what really matters. Fundamentals do matter.

A beginner/junior with solid knowledge of fundamentals but without a framework knowledge is on his/her path to success.

Beginners are discouraged when they grab a framework and struggle with it all the time because they think they know it but they lack understanding of language fundamentals which are a prerequisite for using a framework.

Let me give you an example:
Hooks embrace JavaScript closures and avoid introducing React-specific APIs where JavaScript already provides a solution.
Source reactjs.org/docs/hooks-effect.html

It's a clear example where knowing JS closures helps with understanding how hooks work in React.

Notice "React-specific APIs"... All frameworks and libs have a lot of specific stuff that is not directly transferable from frameworks to framework. So imagine a beginner using hooks in React and then switching to another framework and using a similar solution that is abstracted away in a different way. Same stuff but named and approached differently. But a beginner will have no clue because of lack of understanding of JavaScript closures...

You get the idea.

Yes, I am a mentor. And I speak from experience.

And if you tell you've mentored hundreds of juniors successfully, I will not doubt it even for a second because I am 100% sure that you mentored them explaining what really matters, even if subconsciously.

Thread Thread
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr • Edited

The docs for react have been rewritten from scratch exactly for that reason: that they implied too much prior knowledge to be inclusive for beginners.

I'm not saying "fundamentals don't matter", I'm asserting that you should have learned most of them by the point you overcame your initial confidence.

The junior devs I have mentored learned about closures as a part of the way functions work before they lost their confidence in their initial knowledge. How do you teach functions (one of the basic data types I explicitly mentioned in the article) without explaining scope and closures?

Collapse
 
tythos profile image
Brian Kirkpatrick

This is a great article, and a good summary of some stuff I didn't know (will have to check out Mithril).

We avoid React because the build step and abstraction buy-in just isn't worth it. Instead, we use smaller modules (RequireJS-based, but migrating to ES6) with Handlebars-based templating. There's also a singular-CSS assertion. Event bindings map pretty well but the property listeners leave something to be desired.

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

Thank you for your feedback.

While I've included Mithril solely to show the opposite of the reactive spectrum, I'm sure it'll do its job – especially if most of your interaction is based on events anyways. I only ever played around with it, but it is actively used, so I guess it can't be too bad.

If no-compilation remains a hard requirement and you want to try something really reactive, Solid.js has you covered, too.

In any case, good luck!

Collapse
 
tythos profile image
Brian Kirkpatrick

Of course! Ymmv, and every project works under different constraints that lead to different choices of technology.

Collapse
 
artdevgame profile image
Mike Holloway

Interesting read. Thanks.

I've been using React & React Native for some years now & I think it's a great tool. That being said, I have experienced the pain of things being re-rendered unexpectedly (usually down to using context or useEffect wrong) and have decided to try SolidJs recently.

It has a very familiar feel, I think that mostly comes from the React side of things, but I also spent years with Knockout too. I remember disliking the latter because it got a bit obscure what was causing a state change in a complex system.

Not sure why I'm sharing this, other than to say to someone new that they're pretty similar. Once you've learnt one, the skills are mostly transferrable to another & as long as you have several ideas, it becomes quicker each time to prototype with a new/different library/framework.

Go for the one that looks the most fun.

Collapse
 
lexlohr profile image
Alex Lohr

While react and Solid.js look superficially similar, under the hood, they are polar opposites.

React uses reconciliation of immutable state, effects, refs and memos opt out of its reactivity and it re-runs components to fill it's vDOM. Solid uses signals, effects, memos, variable props and JSX expressions opt into its reactivity and components are rendered once without a vDOM.

Don't be afraid of choosing a new framework. You might find new patterns that work well even in other frameworks.

Collapse
 
benny00100 profile image
Benny Schuetz

Very interesting article with a different focus compared to other articles of this topic.

Thanks for sharing.