[OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

Folks, although I've been insulting JavaScript for years, I have always
liked scripting. I decided to install node.js and run the tutorials on how
to make a REST service. There are lots of tutorials, many of them
contradictory or incomplete, or the documented steps don't work as
expected. After confusion in the npm command when you need to *init* or
*install* or use --save I got the express package installed. Then the
express.cmd file which generates the app skeleton is not found, but later
found two folders deep under .bin, and when you run it you don't know which
folder should receive its output.

I finished up with what might be a skeleton JS app web server comprising
403 files in 98 folders (and I haven't even installed all the packages they
mention). It seems to have installed a *views* folder even though I have no
"views" in a rest service, containing .jade files which I've never heard
of, but searches reveal it's another JS library for templates. There a
multiple templates libraries available and it looks like jade is now being
phased out. I eventually run "node myserver.js" and it says it's listening
on http://:::8081 but it's not responding and tcpview indicates that
nothing is listening on that port.

So after 3 hours of installing, reading, generating, fiddling and futzing I
finished up with a gigantic morass of files and folders that don't even
serve "hello world". I thought VS2015 might have JS project support, but it
doesn't seem to (am I missing something?). Do I have to install another
product like Code (or similar) to get a JS project IDE?

I'm afraid all this has simply hardended my opinion that the whole
JavaScipt culture and ecosystem is a lunatic asylum.

*Greg K*

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Craig van Nieuwkerk]

If you are doing a Javascript centric project (Node, Angular) you will be
better suited using Visual Studio Code.

Craig

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Folks, although I've been insulting JavaScript for years, I have always
> liked scripting. I decided to install node.js and run the tutorials on how
> to make a REST service. There are lots of tutorials, many of them
> contradictory or incomplete, or the documented steps don't work as
> expected. After confusion in the npm command when you need to *init* or
> *install* or use --save I got the express package installed. Then the
> express.cmd file which generates the app skeleton is not found, but later
> found two folders deep under .bin, and when you run it you don't know which
> folder should receive its output.
>
> I finished up with what might be a skeleton JS app web server comprising
> 403 files in 98 folders (and I haven't even installed all the packages they
> mention). It seems to have installed a *views* folder even though I have
> no "views" in a rest service, containing .jade files which I've never heard
> of, but searches reveal it's another JS library for templates. There a
> multiple templates libraries available and it looks like jade is now being
> phased out. I eventually run "node myserver.js" and it says it's listening
> on http://:::8081 but it's not responding and tcpview indicates that
> nothing is listening on that port.
>
> So after 3 hours of installing, reading, generating, fiddling and futzing
> I finished up with a gigantic morass of files and folders that don't even
> serve "hello world". I thought VS2015 might have JS project support, but it
> doesn't seem to (am I missing something?). Do I have to install another
> product like Code (or similar) to get a JS project IDE?
>
> I'm afraid all this has simply hardended my opinion that the whole
> JavaScipt culture and ecosystem is a lunatic asylum.
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Stephen Price]

What are you doing?! JavaScript hasn't passed the "Tested by Greg Keogh" 
certification. You shouldn't be in there touching that stuff!

You've only yourself to blame. Don't poke the angry bear.

On 21 Nov. 2016 6:01 am, Greg Keogh  wrote:
Folks, although I've been insulting JavaScript for years, I have always liked 
scripting. I decided to install node.js and run the tutorials on how to make a 
REST service. There are lots of tutorials, many of them contradictory or 
incomplete, or the documented steps don't work as expected. After confusion in 
the npm command when you need to init or install or use --save I got the 
express package installed. Then the express.cmd file which generates the app 
skeleton is not found, but later found two folders deep under .bin, and when 
you run it you don't know which folder should receive its output.

I finished up with what might be a skeleton JS app web server comprising 403 
files in 98 folders (and I haven't even installed all the packages they 
mention). It seems to have installed a views folder even though I have no 
"views" in a rest service, containing .jade files which I've never heard of, 
but searches reveal it's another JS library for templates. There a multiple 
templates libraries available and it looks like jade is now being phased out. I 
eventually run "node myserver.js" and it says it's listening on http://:::8081 
but it's not responding and tcpview indicates that nothing is listening on that 
port.

So after 3 hours of installing, reading, generating, fiddling and futzing I 
finished up with a gigantic morass of files and folders that don't even serve 
"hello world". I thought VS2015 might have JS project support, but it doesn't 
seem to (am I missing something?). Do I have to install another product like 
Code (or similar) to get a JS project IDE?

I'm afraid all this has simply hardended my opinion that the whole JavaScipt 
culture and ecosystem is a lunatic asylum.

Greg K

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Connors]

I think they use "Javascript" with cookies to serve you ads on teh
internets.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 at 11:01 Stephen Price 
wrote:

> What are you doing?! JavaScript hasn't passed the "Tested by Greg Keogh"
> certification. You shouldn't be in there touching that stuff!
>
> You've only yourself to blame. Don't poke the angry bear.
>
> On 21 Nov. 2016 6:01 am, Greg Keogh  wrote:
>
> Folks, although I've been insulting JavaScript for years, I have always
> liked scripting. I decided to install node.js and run the tutorials on how
> to make a REST service. There are lots of tutorials, many of them
> contradictory or incomplete, or the documented steps don't work as
> expected. After confusion in the npm command when you need to *init* or
> *install* or use --save I got the express package installed. Then the
> express.cmd file which generates the app skeleton is not found, but later
> found two folders deep under .bin, and when you run it you don't know which
> folder should receive its output.
>
> I finished up with what might be a skeleton JS app web server comprising
> 403 files in 98 folders (and I haven't even installed all the packages they
> mention). It seems to have installed a *views* folder even though I have
> no "views" in a rest service, containing .jade files which I've never heard
> of, but searches reveal it's another JS library for templates. There a
> multiple templates libraries available and it looks like jade is now being
> phased out. I eventually run "node myserver.js" and it says it's listening
> on http://:::8081 but it's not responding and tcpview indicates that
> nothing is listening on that port.
>
> So after 3 hours of installing, reading, generating, fiddling and futzing
> I finished up with a gigantic morass of files and folders that don't even
> serve "hello world". I thought VS2015 might have JS project support, but it
> doesn't seem to (am I missing something?). Do I have to install another
> product like Code (or similar) to get a JS project IDE?
>
> I'm afraid all this has simply hardended my opinion that the whole
> JavaScipt culture and ecosystem is a lunatic asylum.
>
> *Greg K*
>
>
> --
David Connors
da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Bec C]

You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone
around me doesn't agree. Hey just a few years ago I could create a a whole
web app in 10 minutes but now I have to go and get tens of packages in the
dependency chain and glue them together and become a plumber to make it all
work. Sure it can be done but is it an efficient use of my time?! Hey do
you want VS to do the setup and boring stuff for you? Nah I'd rather waste
my time and do it all myself manually. Yay... not! The web is dead to me.
Sorry a bit upset today

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Folks, although I've been insulting JavaScript for years, I have always
> liked scripting. I decided to install node.js and run the tutorials on how
> to make a REST service. There are lots of tutorials, many of them
> contradictory or incomplete, or the documented steps don't work as
> expected. After confusion in the npm command when you need to *init* or
> *install* or use --save I got the express package installed. Then the
> express.cmd file which generates the app skeleton is not found, but later
> found two folders deep under .bin, and when you run it you don't know which
> folder should receive its output.
>
> I finished up with what might be a skeleton JS app web server comprising
> 403 files in 98 folders (and I haven't even installed all the packages they
> mention). It seems to have installed a *views* folder even though I have
> no "views" in a rest service, containing .jade files which I've never heard
> of, but searches reveal it's another JS library for templates. There a
> multiple templates libraries available and it looks like jade is now being
> phased out. I eventually run "node myserver.js" and it says it's listening
> on http://:::8081 but it's not responding and tcpview indicates that
> nothing is listening on that port.
>
> So after 3 hours of installing, reading, generating, fiddling and futzing
> I finished up with a gigantic morass of files and folders that don't even
> serve "hello world". I thought VS2015 might have JS project support, but it
> doesn't seem to (am I missing something?). Do I have to install another
> product like Code (or similar) to get a JS project IDE?
>
> I'm afraid all this has simply hardended my opinion that the whole
> JavaScipt culture and ecosystem is a lunatic asylum.
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

> You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone
> around me doesn't agree.
>

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad
to know you are too! -- *Greg*

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Stephen Price]

Goodness, you are not alone.

I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.


Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true, 
reading)

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi


https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6


There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but 
dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny 
because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.


If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in the 
pain, somewhere.


cheers

Stephen

p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to be, for 
that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and online.


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on behalf 
of Greg Keogh 
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around me 
doesn't agree.

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
know you are too! -- Greg

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Bec C]

On Monday, 21 November 2016, Stephen Price 
wrote:

> Goodness, you are not alone.
>
> I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.
>
>
> Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true,
> reading)
>
> https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-
> 2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi
>
>
> https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-
> 1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6
>
>
> There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but
> dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny
> because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.
>
>
> If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in
> the pain, somewhere.
>
>
> That's quite a way of seeing it. haha I'll try it


> cheers
>
> Stephen
>
> p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to
> be, for that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and
> online.
> --
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>  <
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
> > on
> behalf of Greg Keogh  >
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
> You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone
>> around me doesn't agree.
>>
>
> Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad
> to know you are too! -- *Greg*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Davy Jones]

Don't waste your time with nodejs, it's an unmitigated nightmare. Someone will 
mention portability somewhere in the conversation and then you know how high 
the BS is.  

People hate microsoft, and especially .net because they have been around for 
longer than they can remember, it will pass 

Davy

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Nov 2016, at 07:48, Greg Keogh  wrote:
> 
> 
>> You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around 
>> me doesn't agree.
> 
> Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
> know you are too! -- Greg

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Stephen Price]

Which bit? The pain? Hahah... yeah.

It was my favourite saying back when I was in Infrastructure. "Hell, if this 
shit actually worked, we'd be out of a job!"


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on behalf 
of Bec C 
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 4:06 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


On Monday, 21 November 2016, Stephen Price 
mailto:step...@lythixdesigns.com>> wrote:

Goodness, you are not alone.

I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.


Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true, 
reading)

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi


https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6


There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but 
dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny 
because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.


If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in the 
pain, somewhere.


That's quite a way of seeing it. haha I'll try it


cheers

Stephen

p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to be, for 
that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and online.


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on behalf 
of Greg Keogh 
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around me 
doesn't agree.

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
know you are too! -- Greg

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.

I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core 
business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were still 
struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.

But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could have 
created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.

This is progress?

We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying to 
deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy visual 
experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using them for the 
session timeout period.

I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Stephen Price
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


Goodness, you are not alone.

I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.



Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true, 
reading)

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi



https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6



There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but 
dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny 
because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.



If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in the 
pain, somewhere.



cheers

Stephen

p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to be, for 
that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and online.


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> on behalf 
of Greg Keogh mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around me 
doesn't agree.

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
know you are too! -- Greg

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[DotNet Dude]

Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be
done in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.

Some of our clients are even TELLING us how to build it using whatever
technology they've recently heard of. One customer recently asked us to use
Electron. Did they need cross platform? No. Why force javascript down my
team's throat when it can be avoided altogether and we can have it done in
a week with wpf or winforms?!

Many years ago we just did a winforms app and deployed via clickonce.
Worked well and no complaints in the Intranet environments. I've yet to see
a case where not using winforms (or wpf) or webforms (or mvc) is worth it
in Intranet situations.

Internet facing apps is a whole different thing obviously.

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.
>
>
>
> I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core
> business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were
> still struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.
>
>
>
> But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could
> have created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.
>
>
>
> This is progress?
>
>
>
> We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying
> to deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy
> visual experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using
> them for the session timeout period.
>
>
>
> I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
> net.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Price
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Goodness, you are not alone.
>
> I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.
>
>
>
> Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true,
> reading)
>
> https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2
> 016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi
>
>
>
> https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-160
> 3a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6
>
>
>
> There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but
> dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny
> because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.
>
>
>
> If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in
> the pain, somewhere.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Stephen
>
> p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to
> be, for that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and
> online.
> --
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Greg Keogh 
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
>
>
> You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone
> around me doesn't agree.
>
>
>
> Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad
> to know you are too! -- *Greg*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Rhys Jones]

I agree completely,

where's the like/up rep button for you Dr Greg?


*... .. /  --- -.-. / .-.. . --. . .-. . / ... -.-. .. ... / -. .. --
.. ..- -- / . .-. ..- -.. .. - .. --- -. .. ... /  .- -... . ... .-.-.-*


On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
wrote:

> I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.
>
>
>
> I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core
> business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were
> still struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.
>
>
>
> But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could
> have created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.
>
>
>
> This is progress?
>
>
>
> We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying
> to deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy
> visual experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using
> them for the session timeout period.
>
>
>
> I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Price
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Goodness, you are not alone.
>
> I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.
>
>
>
> Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true,
> reading)
>
> https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-
> 2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi
>
>
>
> https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-
> 1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6
>
>
>
> There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but
> dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny
> because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.
>
>
>
> If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in
> the pain, somewhere.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Stephen
>
> p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to
> be, for that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and
> online.
> --
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Greg Keogh 
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
>
>
> You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone
> around me doesn't agree.
>
>
>
> Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad
> to know you are too! -- *Greg*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

>
> Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be
> done in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.
>

So there are lots of crazy people in here ... Fabulous!

I can also write Winforms or WPF apps in 1/10 (or far less) the time of
equivalent JS code. I have also had Clickone working perfectly 10 years
ago. I also really miss Silverlight.

Writing anything in JS is the most tediously slow and frustrating
experience of my career (trying to make Xamarin apps work is a close
second, but that's another story). The crude IDEs, the immature language
definition, the poor tooling, lack of conventions, too much choice and
duplication, jumbled dependencies, etc, all drag you down and backwards.
After 35 years of coding, I have a ache in my guts telling me that
something is WRONG with JavaScript, it's the WRONG thing for the WRONG job,
but it just won't friggin' die.

I only found out about Electron several weeks ago when I wondered how they
had written Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer 
so it runs on Windows and OSX. By poking around in the files you will see
clues that it's "Electron" ... which turns out to be a JS framework for
writing desktop apps, holy sh*t. That also explains why it feels a bit
weird to use.

Oh well, back to C# and "real" development...

*GK*

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Connors]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 at 07:33 Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

There is no doubt that a full stack angular/rest/json is more expensive to
build than WinForms (or MS Access). In any case where the app is widely
used by a large number of users I think the cost is justified.

We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying
to deploy Windows apps.


I think deployment was a small part of the issue. We started building web
apps for many reasons.

Microsoft continually let us down in with distributed technology - they fkd
around for three decades and failed to produce anything that worked as well
as REST/JSON. DCE/RPC, COM+, DCOM, whatever were all horrible both to write
code in, to deploy and to own the ops for. In the case of RPC I don't know
if anyone outside of people who write management tools at Microsoft ever
used it.

As for deployment ActiveX, clickonce, etc were all bullshit too.

Client-deployed applications tightly bound to a SQL back (or other back
end) were seductively easy to write because the CRUD use case is trivial
with a forms generator when you don't give a toss about concurrency,
security, etc.

80% of the cost of an application starts after you finish dev and a well
written modern, responsive web app costs very little to maintain (and works
on all the things both network and device).

David.



-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[DotNet Dude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:43 AM, David Connors  wrote:

> 80% of the cost of an application starts after you finish dev and a well
> written modern, responsive web app costs very little to maintain (and works
> on all the things both network and device).
>

>
Not in my experience. I'm yet to see one of these well written modern
responsive web apps you speak of. We normally get hired to go in and fix
the mess left by devs learning on the job. We also can't really blame the
devs for everything as with all the new frameworks and such coming out each
week (slight exaggeration) they are always learning on the job and can't be
expected to write good stuff.

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Rhys Jones]

I follow a number of CSS and javascript blogs, the boss thinks it's so I
can stay ahead of the wave. The real reason is it gives me a chuckle every
day when they try to solve a problem that they themselves inflicted by
using a precompiler/framework that wasn't really needed in the first place.

A colleague is currently trying to implement a work around on a problem
that is related to Less and knockout. Take a look at the less home page and
see how they changed 3 lines of CSS into a whole mess of pre-compiler crap.


*... .. /  --- -.-. / .-.. . --. . .-. . / ... -.-. .. ... / -. .. --
.. ..- -- / . .-. ..- -.. .. - .. --- -. .. ... /  .- -... . ... .-.-.-*


On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:13 AM, DotNet Dude  wrote:

>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:43 AM, David Connors  wrote:
>
>> 80% of the cost of an application starts after you finish dev and a well
>> written modern, responsive web app costs very little to maintain (and works
>> on all the things both network and device).
>>
>
>>
> Not in my experience. I'm yet to see one of these well written modern
> responsive web apps you speak of. We normally get hired to go in and fix
> the mess left by devs learning on the job. We also can't really blame the
> devs for everything as with all the new frameworks and such coming out each
> week (slight exaggeration) they are always learning on the job and can't be
> expected to write good stuff.
>
>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

Typical Devs – all they talk about is how much faster/quicker they can write an 
app in one tech vs. another. As if that’s the only thing that matters. ☺☺ 
(note, smiley faces!)

Development time/cost/effort is generally a small fraction of the cost of 
supporting an app, let alone the cost of supporting a large environment.

Maybe thick-client deployment works well in small(er) environments. It doesn’t 
scale in larger ones. As David alluded too, there were many drivers to moving 
towards web-based applications

Cheers
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of DotNet Dude
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:15 AM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be done 
in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.

Some of our clients are even TELLING us how to build it using whatever 
technology they've recently heard of. One customer recently asked us to use 
Electron. Did they need cross platform? No. Why force javascript down my team's 
throat when it can be avoided altogether and we can have it done in a week with 
wpf or winforms?!

Many years ago we just did a winforms app and deployed via clickonce. Worked 
well and no complaints in the Intranet environments. I've yet to see a case 
where not using winforms (or wpf) or webforms (or mvc) is worth it in Intranet 
situations.

Internet facing apps is a whole different thing obviously.

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
mailto:g...@greglow.com>> wrote:
I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.

I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core 
business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were still 
struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.

But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could have 
created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.

This is progress?

We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying to 
deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy visual 
experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using them for the 
session timeout period.

I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ 
+61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Price
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


Goodness, you are not alone.

I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.



Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true, 
reading)

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi



https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6



There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but 
dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny 
because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.



If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in the 
pain, somewhere.



cheers

Stephen

p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to be, for 
that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and online.


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> on behalf 
of Greg Keogh mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around me 
doesn't agree.

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
know you are too! -- Greg

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

What do you see as the key drivers Ken?

I can guess as I spend my life in these environments but I’m left wondering if 
we could have solved them a much better way.

We simply haven’t achieved productivity. And I’ll bet if someone is starting to 
build something new today, they can’t even work out what to use. How did we get 
to this?

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:15 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

Typical Devs – all they talk about is how much faster/quicker they can write an 
app in one tech vs. another. As if that’s the only thing that matters. ☺☺ 
(note, smiley faces!)

Development time/cost/effort is generally a small fraction of the cost of 
supporting an app, let alone the cost of supporting a large environment.

Maybe thick-client deployment works well in small(er) environments. It doesn’t 
scale in larger ones. As David alluded too, there were many drivers to moving 
towards web-based applications

Cheers
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of DotNet Dude
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:15 AM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be done 
in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.

Some of our clients are even TELLING us how to build it using whatever 
technology they've recently heard of. One customer recently asked us to use 
Electron. Did they need cross platform? No. Why force javascript down my team's 
throat when it can be avoided altogether and we can have it done in a week with 
wpf or winforms?!

Many years ago we just did a winforms app and deployed via clickonce. Worked 
well and no complaints in the Intranet environments. I've yet to see a case 
where not using winforms (or wpf) or webforms (or mvc) is worth it in Intranet 
situations.

Internet facing apps is a whole different thing obviously.

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
mailto:g...@greglow.com>> wrote:
I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.

I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core 
business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were still 
struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.

But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could have 
created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.

This is progress?

We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying to 
deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy visual 
experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using them for the 
session timeout period.

I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ 
+61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Price
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


Goodness, you are not alone.

I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.



Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true, 
reading)

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi



https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6



There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but 
dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny 
because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.



If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in the 
pain, somewhere.



cheers

Stephen

p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to be, for 
that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and online.


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> on behalf 
of Greg Keogh mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around me 
doesn't agree.

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
know you are too! -- Greg

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

@Ken; except that thick clients also are easier to debug and maintain as
well; in fact the whole life-cycle is shorter.

However I agree that fundamental drivers are towards web-based
applications. Accessibility is the key; we're seeing the Internet of Things
(IoT) exploding in growth. A huge growth in cloud computing. People want to
be able to access everything they need no matter where they are. And thick
clients are simply not transportable.

These days I use OutSystems to generate my line of business reactive
web-applications quickly and easily (it's very reminiscent of old style RAD
tools - with similar limitations). However it doesn't come cheap (I'm lucky
in that my company pays for it), and isn't perfect. But never-the-less, we
re-developed an old thick client application (which has continually grown
to mammoth proportions over a decade), and re-developed it (including new
features) as a reactive mobile-friendly web-application in under 8 months.
I find it's ideal for data driven line-of-business applications; but it's
not something I'd reach for, for complex process heavy operations where
every millisecond counts (although you can call .Net assemblies natively,
or consume REST web-services that you can build yourself to get around
this).

I still keep my eyes somewhat on traditional web-development (OutSystems is
not a heavy solution). I've had a lot of enjoyable moments with Elm, but
it's still immature and some simple things are still infuriatingly hard in
it. However, it's got a good foundation, and I think in time it will turn
out to be very good.

On 22 November 2016 at 09:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> What do you see as the key drivers Ken?
>
>
>
> I can guess as I spend my life in these environments but I’m left
> wondering if we could have solved them a much better way.
>
>
>
> We simply haven’t achieved productivity. And I’ll bet if someone is
> starting to build something new today, they can’t even work out what to
> use. How did we get to this?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:15 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Typical Devs – all they talk about is how much faster/quicker they can
> write an app in one tech vs. another. As if that’s the only thing that
> matters. JJ (note, smiley faces!)
>
>
> Development time/cost/effort is generally a small fraction of the cost of
> supporting an app, let alone the cost of supporting a large environment.
>
>
>
> Maybe thick-client deployment works well in small(er) environments. It
> doesn’t scale in larger ones. As David alluded too, there were many drivers
> to moving towards web-based applications
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *DotNet Dude
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:15 AM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be
> done in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.
>
>
>
> Some of our clients are even TELLING us how to build it using whatever
> technology they've recently heard of. One customer recently asked us to use
> Electron. Did they need cross platform? No. Why force javascript down my
> team's throat when it can be avoided altogether and we can have it done in
> a week with wpf or winforms?!
>
>
>
> Many years ago we just did a winforms app and deployed via clickonce.
> Worked well and no complaints in the Intranet environments. I've yet to see
> a case where not using winforms (or wpf) or webforms (or mvc) is worth it
> in Intranet situations.
>
>
>
> Internet facing apps is a whole different thing obviously.
>
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
> I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.
>
>
>
> I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core
> business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were
> still struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.
>
>
>
> But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could
> have created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.
>
>
>
> This is progress?
>
>
>
> We started building web apps bec

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

Ack.. meant OutSystems IS a heavy solution.

On 22 November 2016 at 09:45, Nathan Schultz  wrote:

> @Ken; except that thick clients also are easier to debug and maintain as
> well; in fact the whole life-cycle is shorter.
>
> However I agree that fundamental drivers are towards web-based
> applications. Accessibility is the key; we're seeing the Internet of Things
> (IoT) exploding in growth. A huge growth in cloud computing. People want to
> be able to access everything they need no matter where they are. And thick
> clients are simply not transportable.
>
> These days I use OutSystems to generate my line of business reactive
> web-applications quickly and easily (it's very reminiscent of old style RAD
> tools - with similar limitations). However it doesn't come cheap (I'm lucky
> in that my company pays for it), and isn't perfect. But never-the-less, we
> re-developed an old thick client application (which has continually grown
> to mammoth proportions over a decade), and re-developed it (including new
> features) as a reactive mobile-friendly web-application in under 8 months.
> I find it's ideal for data driven line-of-business applications; but it's
> not something I'd reach for, for complex process heavy operations where
> every millisecond counts (although you can call .Net assemblies natively,
> or consume REST web-services that you can build yourself to get around
> this).
>
> I still keep my eyes somewhat on traditional web-development (OutSystems
> is not a heavy solution). I've had a lot of enjoyable moments with Elm, but
> it's still immature and some simple things are still infuriatingly hard in
> it. However, it's got a good foundation, and I think in time it will turn
> out to be very good.
>
> On 22 November 2016 at 09:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
>> What do you see as the key drivers Ken?
>>
>>
>>
>> I can guess as I spend my life in these environments but I’m left
>> wondering if we could have solved them a much better way.
>>
>>
>>
>> We simply haven’t achieved productivity. And I’ll bet if someone is
>> starting to build something new today, they can’t even work out what to
>> use. How did we get to this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Greg Low
>>
>>
>>
>> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
>> fax
>>
>> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
>> net.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:15 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet 
>> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> Typical Devs – all they talk about is how much faster/quicker they can
>> write an app in one tech vs. another. As if that’s the only thing that
>> matters. JJ (note, smiley faces!)
>>
>>
>> Development time/cost/effort is generally a small fraction of the cost of
>> supporting an app, let alone the cost of supporting a large environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe thick-client deployment works well in small(er) environments. It
>> doesn’t scale in larger ones. As David alluded too, there were many drivers
>> to moving towards web-based applications
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
>> net.com ] *On Behalf Of *DotNet Dude
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:15 AM
>> *To:* ozDotNet 
>> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be
>> done in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of our clients are even TELLING us how to build it using whatever
>> technology they've recently heard of. One customer recently asked us to use
>> Electron. Did they need cross platform? No. Why force javascript down my
>> team's throat when it can be avoided altogether and we can have it done in
>> a week with wpf or winforms?!
>>
>>
>>
>> Many years ago we just did a winforms app and deployed via clickonce.
>> Worked well and no complaints in the Intranet environments. I've yet to see
>> a case where not using winforms (or wpf) or webforms (or mvc) is worth it
>> in Intranet situations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Internet facing apps is a whole different thing obviously.
>>
>> On Tu

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Adrian Halid]

Hi Nathen,

 

How long have you been using Outsystems?

Are you using the platform internally or for your customers?

 

 

Regards

 

Adrian Halid 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:49 AM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

Ack.. meant OutSystems IS a heavy solution.

 

On 22 November 2016 at 09:45, Nathan Schultz mailto:milish...@gmail.com> > wrote:

@Ken; except that thick clients also are easier to debug and maintain as well; 
in fact the whole life-cycle is shorter.

 

However I agree that fundamental drivers are towards web-based applications. 
Accessibility is the key; we're seeing the Internet of Things (IoT) exploding 
in growth. A huge growth in cloud computing. People want to be able to access 
everything they need no matter where they are. And thick clients are simply not 
transportable.

 

These days I use OutSystems to generate my line of business reactive 
web-applications quickly and easily (it's very reminiscent of old style RAD 
tools - with similar limitations). However it doesn't come cheap (I'm lucky in 
that my company pays for it), and isn't perfect. But never-the-less, we 
re-developed an old thick client application (which has continually grown to 
mammoth proportions over a decade), and re-developed it (including new 
features) as a reactive mobile-friendly web-application in under 8 months. I 
find it's ideal for data driven line-of-business applications; but it's not 
something I'd reach for, for complex process heavy operations where every 
millisecond counts (although you can call .Net assemblies natively, or consume 
REST web-services that you can build yourself to get around this).

 

I still keep my eyes somewhat on traditional web-development (OutSystems is not 
a heavy solution). I've had a lot of enjoyable moments with Elm, but it's still 
immature and some simple things are still infuriatingly hard in it. However, 
it's got a good foundation, and I think in time it will turn out to be very 
good.

 

On 22 November 2016 at 09:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) mailto:g...@greglow.com> > wrote:

What do you see as the key drivers Ken?

 

I can guess as I spend my life in these environments but I’m left wondering if 
we could have solved them a much better way. 

 

We simply haven’t achieved productivity. And I’ll bet if someone is starting to 
build something new today, they can’t even work out what to use. How did we get 
to this?

 

Regards,

 

Greg

 

Dr Greg Low

 

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office |   +61 419201410 
mobile│   +61 3 8676 4913 fax 

SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com |  
<http://greglow.me/> http://greglow.me

 

From:  <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com 
[mailto: <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] 
On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:15 PM
To: ozDotNet < <mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

Typical Devs – all they talk about is how much faster/quicker they can write an 
app in one tech vs. another. As if that’s the only thing that matters. :):) 
(note, smiley faces!)


Development time/cost/effort is generally a small fraction of the cost of 
supporting an app, let alone the cost of supporting a large environment.

 

Maybe thick-client deployment works well in small(er) environments. It doesn’t 
scale in larger ones. As David alluded too, there were many drivers to moving 
towards web-based applications

 

Cheers

Ken

 

From:  <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [ 
<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of DotNet Dude
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:15 AM
To: ozDotNet < <mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be done 
in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.

 

Some of our clients are even TELLING us how to build it using whatever 
technology they've recently heard of. One customer recently asked us to use 
Electron. Did they need cross platform? No. Why force javascript down my team's 
throat when it can be avoided altogether and we can have it done in a week with 
wpf or winforms?!

 

Many years ago we just did a winforms app and deployed via clickonce. Worked 
well and no complaints in the Intranet environments. I've yet to see a case 
where not using winforms (or wpf) or webforms (or mvc) is worth it in Intranet 
situations.

 

Internet facing apps is a whole different thing obviously.

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) < <mailto:g...@greglow.com> 
g..

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

Don’t get me wrong – it’s not like web applications have solved all our 
woes…far from it!

But let’s consider the state of IT around, say early 2000 (when this whole “web 
thing” was starting to become big in corporate land). It’s a Windows NT 4 / 
Windows 2000 type world – XP around the corner. This list is, by no means, 
comprehensive, but just a dump off-the-top-of-my-head

Deploying apps:

-  Hard, but doable. But most tools were pretty primitive – we could 
have been on SMS 2.0 at the time. ActiveX was around. Some people were even 
using Group Policy based deployments.

-  And then there was the network – huge sets of FW rules to get 
DCOM/RPC etc. working.

-  Maybe your users were on the end of a 128kbps leased line ISDN 
connection – pushing stuff out there is not easy, and low priority compared to 
actually running your business!

Managing dependencies and pre-requisites

-  Really hard. With 500+ applications, a bunch which were “off the 
shelf”, trying to manage pre-requisites and dependencies was a PITA, especially 
when there were incompatibilities between libraries etc. Remember .dll hell? 
Remember the extra software we had to buy to get two versions of Acrobat 
running side-by-side. Or two versions of Sun’s JVM?

Upgrading apps

-  Doable, but no real palatable options. Did you upgrade an app when 
someone logged on (e.g. the GPO option), whilst the user twiddled their thumbs 
for an hour? Or when they tried to use an app? Or somehow in the background (in 
which case their app might not work because you already upgrade the backend)?

License compliance

-  Really hard. Trying to know what was installed, and being used, was 
really, really hard. Even today, big enterprises spend a fortune deploying 
software asset management tools that scan you network/hosts looking for 
software that’s installed, to work out what we need to pay for, and what we 
need to be aware of when we make changes/upgrades.

Upgrading OS

-  And this is where it got really painful. Who has what installed? And 
what versions? And then testing all these apps against a new SOE. Really, 
really expensive.

All of the above leads to a distinct loss of agility and flexibility. In order 
to keep the end-user estate manageable, we ended up with huge standards and 
processes that everyone had to jump through to get applications into the 
environment, and keep the managed.

And that’s partly the reason why VBA, Access, Excel etc. became so popular 
– end users could become their own “shadow IT” departments, running their own 
little apps because everything else was too slow and too expensive to deploy 
through official channels. Even though it just added up to more tech debt that 
had to be “paid for” later when the next upgrade of Office or Windows rolled 
through.

Then a bright spark comes along and said – “we can solve all this”

-  All your apps runs inside a single app – your web browser! Just one 
app (the browser) to test against your web apps when upgrading!

-  It all runs over a single TCP port! And it has built-in 
over-the-wire encryption and identity (SSL, now TLS!)

-  All dependency management moved to a central place, where it’s easy 
to get visibility of what’s in use and test!

-  You can upgrade everything overnight! Just replace the software in 
your data centre! No need to touch tens of thousands of end-user devices!

-  Licensing gets really simple – vendors will have new models where 
you can see/track users at the server – don’t worry about end-device 
licenses/deployments because these don’t exist anymore.

-  Users get mobility – use any PC (and now, any device) anywhere – no 
more requirement to have a client deployed to the device beforehand, in order 
for the user to be productive

-  All heavy data movements are contained within the data centre – just 
the presentation is sent to the end-user

Sounds like some kind of nirvana, right?

Of course we know that’s not really the case. The underlying problems of 
building applications in an ecosystem haven’t gone away. They’ve just moved 
from one spot to another ☺


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Low (??)
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:25 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

What do you see as the key drivers Ken?

I can guess as I spend my life in these environments but I’m left wondering if 
we could have solved them a much better way.

We simply haven’t achieved productivity. And I’ll bet if someone is starting to 
build something new today, they can’t even work out what to use. How did we get 
to this?

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: o

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

I think that’s more likely the case when you have a single thick client, in 
isolation.

It doesn’t really scale when you have an ecosystem of hundreds (or thousands) 
of thick-clients in your environment.

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:46 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

@Ken; except that thick clients also are easier to debug and maintain as well;

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

@Adrian, I've only been using OutSystems for a relatively short time.
However, my company has been using it for a couple of years now (mainly
products we sell and projects for large clients). You can use OutSystems
for free as a sole-developer, but you don't get the ability to use
on-premise deployment or generate code; you're apps are stuck on the
OutSystems cloud forever, and you don't get all of the niceties such as
source control, whole-of-life-cycle management, etc.

@Ken, I definitely agree issues have simply moved from one place to
another. It's easy to over-romanticise the old days, but I still maintain a
VB6 application for one of our clients. It's nothing short of a nightmare
trying to keep it running on an ever-changing SOE - to the point where it's
now an option to redevelop it, or transfer it to an unchanging VM. And even
from a development perspective, it's easy to forget how hard some things
used to be when .Net makes them so easy.

But many of the same problems persist on the web, and the web has brought
entirely new challenges. The web has all the same issues of DLL hell -
different components need different versions of the same component - like
the other day I saw a project where there required multiple versions of
JQuery due to different component requirements - and the hacks required to
ensure that the right version is used for the right components isn't
pretty. And apps are no longer isolated within the company - you're not
developing for a particular SOE anymore - but rather a polyglot of devices
with different operation systems, software, features, sizes, resolutions
and capabilities. Testing if anything is a longer process than ever before.
Licensing for some software is on a per-user basis on the web, which brings
it's own challenges for anonymous systems. Deployment must still go through
a full change management process (there are still a multitude of things
that can go wrong), and when you consider the same thing could occur today
using one-click deployment, sand-boxed applications, and Docker containers,
the web doesn't have an ace up its sleeve there either.


On 22 November 2016 at 10:08, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

> I think that’s more likely the case when you have a single thick client,
> in isolation.
>
>
>
> It doesn’t really scale when you have an ecosystem of hundreds (or
> thousands) of thick-clients in your environment.
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:46 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Ken; except that thick clients also are easier to debug and maintain as
> well;
>
>
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Tom Rutter]

Dr Greg, the situation you describe below is quite rare from what I've
seen. If a winform app would suffice then why was it important for the web
app to work on multiple browsers? Multiple browser support is usually only
really needed for Internet facing apps. Dev teams usually just tell the
users which browser internal apps support and just avoid the multi browser
support issues.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.
>
>
>
> I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core
> business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were
> still struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.
>
>
>
> But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could
> have created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.
>
>
>
> This is progress?
>
>
>
> We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying
> to deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy
> visual experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using
> them for the session timeout period.
>
>
>
> I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Price
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Goodness, you are not alone.
>
> I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.
>
>
>
> Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true,
> reading)
>
> https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-
> 2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi
>
>
>
> https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-
> 1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6
>
>
>
> There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but
> dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny
> because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.
>
>
>
> If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in
> the pain, somewhere.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Stephen
>
> p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to
> be, for that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and
> online.
> --
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Greg Keogh 
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
>
>
> You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone
> around me doesn't agree.
>
>
>
> Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad
> to know you are too! -- *Greg*
>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 1:53 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

But many of the same problems persist on the web, and the web has brought 
entirely new challenges. The web has all the same issues of DLL hell - 
different components need different versions of the same component - like the 
other day I saw a project where there required multiple versions of JQuery due 
to different component requirements - and the hacks required to ensure that the 
right version is used for the right components isn't pretty. And apps are no 
longer isolated within the company - you're not developing for a particular SOE 
anymore - but rather a polyglot of devices with different operation systems, 
software, features, sizes, resolutions and capabilities. Testing if anything is 
a longer process than ever before. Licensing for some software is on a per-user 
basis on the web, which brings it's own challenges for anonymous systems. 
Deployment must still go through a full change management process (there are 
still a multitude of things that can go wrong), and when you consider the same 
thing could occur today using one-click deployment, sand-boxed applications, 
and Docker containers, the web doesn't have an ace up its sleeve there either.

In my experience, part of the reason that enterprises prefer stuffing all that 
complexity resolution into the development effort (or getting your vendor to 
take the hit in their development effort) is that it’s project cost. It makes 
it much clearer what the true cost of “application X” is to the business.

If the alternative is passing the cost to BAU/Ops (in terms of managing 
interoperability and keeping an end-user fleet of devices running), it becomes 
far more murky as to what is causing the complexity and how much it’s costing. 
Whoever is funding the project will cut whatever they can (whether it be 
security, sociability testing, monitoring instrumentation), and make it 
Operations problem.

As for “click once” etc. that’s just solving a small technological piece of a 
puzzle. How do I do deployment accounting/licensing etc. via click-once?

My current org is ~40,000 users spread from Sydney to Woomera – do not 
underestimate the complexity of deploying or upgrading anything critical in 
that type of environment: when we used to run a distributed Active Directory 
environment (so that local branches could keep running if the WAN was down), 
simply upgrading AD schema was a 9+ month project, where we ended up auditing 
every DC (around 150 branch ones at the time) to verify that their out-of-band 
management cards were working (about 20 needed replacing, or were not cabled), 
and had to roster tens of support techs to be ready to drive/fly out to a site, 
just in case we had to pull the upgrade process due to something going 
catastrophically wrong. The change had to be done over a long weekend, because 
that was the only time that gave us enough lead time to do an authoritative 
restore. Now, upgrading AD isn’t particularly important to a bank – and if I 
was IT leadership I’d be asking: “why can’t I deploy a core systems upgrade, or 
upgrade online banking during this key window? Why am I upgrading ‘AD’, 
whatever the f*ck that is”

Now, it’s all sitting in our data centres, and we could probably do a scheme 
change overnight if we had too. There are lots of Ops benefits to centralising 
all your core logic and systems.

Cheers
Ken

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

Hi Tom,

Not suggesting that one is a replacement for the other. Just commenting on the 
productivity loss that has happened over the years. We seem to have replaced 
one mess with a bigger one.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Tom Rutter
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:17 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

Dr Greg, the situation you describe below is quite rare from what I've seen. If 
a winform app would suffice then why was it important for the web app to work 
on multiple browsers? Multiple browser support is usually only really needed 
for Internet facing apps. Dev teams usually just tell the users which browser 
internal apps support and just avoid the multi browser support issues.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
mailto:g...@greglow.com>> wrote:
I’m simply amazed at what we’ve done to ourselves as an industry.

I was on a project a while back. With 12 devs and 7 months’ work, the core 
business web app was created. The guys worked hard. At the end, they were still 
struggling to get it to look right on different browsers.

But in the end, I looked at the outcome and knew in my heart that I could have 
created it as a winform app by myself in around a week.

This is progress?

We started building web apps because the IT people were fed up with trying to 
deploy Windows apps. It wasn’t because users were crying out for a lousy visual 
experience, and apps that throw away their work if they stop using them for the 
session timeout period.

I think we “fixed” the wrong problem.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ 
+61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Stephen Price
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 6:59 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


Goodness, you are not alone.

I'm more surprised that you are surprised, that's all.



Some links to confirm you are not alone (and some funny, cause it's true, 
reading)

https://hackernoon.com/how-it-feels-to-learn-javascript-in-2016-d3a717dd577f#.cdvrepjwi



https://medium.com/@wob/the-sad-state-of-web-development-1603a861d29f#.kqtp9oyq6



There was a hilarious one written by a Java developer where she all but 
dissolved in tears and screaming... but I can't find it right now. Funny 
because it was pretty spot on, not because a poor soul was suffering.



If this shit was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's job security in the 
pain, somewhere.



cheers

Stephen

p.s. All opinions and beliefs are my own. I'm not sure how they came to be, for 
that I can only blame those I've hung around, in real life and online.


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> on behalf 
of Greg Keogh mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 2:48:54 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express


You're not alone Greg. It's like going back to spaghetti but everyone around me 
doesn't agree.

Thanks heavens someone is sympathetic. I thought I was crazy, but I'm glad to 
know you are too! -- Greg

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By why 
exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of magnitude 
slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let us down -> big 
time.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:29 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 1:53 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

But many of the same problems persist on the web, and the web has brought 
entirely new challenges. The web has all the same issues of DLL hell - 
different components need different versions of the same component - like the 
other day I saw a project where there required multiple versions of JQuery due 
to different component requirements - and the hacks required to ensure that the 
right version is used for the right components isn't pretty. And apps are no 
longer isolated within the company - you're not developing for a particular SOE 
anymore - but rather a polyglot of devices with different operation systems, 
software, features, sizes, resolutions and capabilities. Testing if anything is 
a longer process than ever before. Licensing for some software is on a per-user 
basis on the web, which brings it's own challenges for anonymous systems. 
Deployment must still go through a full change management process (there are 
still a multitude of things that can go wrong), and when you consider the same 
thing could occur today using one-click deployment, sand-boxed applications, 
and Docker containers, the web doesn't have an ace up its sleeve there either.

In my experience, part of the reason that enterprises prefer stuffing all that 
complexity resolution into the development effort (or getting your vendor to 
take the hit in their development effort) is that it’s project cost. It makes 
it much clearer what the true cost of “application X” is to the business.

If the alternative is passing the cost to BAU/Ops (in terms of managing 
interoperability and keeping an end-user fleet of devices running), it becomes 
far more murky as to what is causing the complexity and how much it’s costing. 
Whoever is funding the project will cut whatever they can (whether it be 
security, sociability testing, monitoring instrumentation), and make it 
Operations problem.

As for “click once” etc. that’s just solving a small technological piece of a 
puzzle. How do I do deployment accounting/licensing etc. via click-once?

My current org is ~40,000 users spread from Sydney to Woomera – do not 
underestimate the complexity of deploying or upgrading anything critical in 
that type of environment: when we used to run a distributed Active Directory 
environment (so that local branches could keep running if the WAN was down), 
simply upgrading AD schema was a 9+ month project, where we ended up auditing 
every DC (around 150 branch ones at the time) to verify that their out-of-band 
management cards were working (about 20 needed replacing, or were not cabled), 
and had to roster tens of support techs to be ready to drive/fly out to a site, 
just in case we had to pull the upgrade process due to something going 
catastrophically wrong. The change had to be done over a long weekend, because 
that was the only time that gave us enough lead time to do an authoritative 
restore. Now, upgrading AD isn’t particularly important to a bank – and if I 
was IT leadership I’d be asking: “why can’t I deploy a core systems upgrade, or 
upgrade online banking during this key window? Why am I upgrading ‘AD’, 
whatever the f*ck that is”

Now, it’s all sitting in our data centres, and we could probably do a scheme 
change overnight if we had too. There are lots of Ops benefits to centralising 
all your core logic and systems.

Cheers
Ken

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

Along with an endless fascination with “shiny new things” at every phase of the 
development process.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:33 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By why 
exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of magnitude 
slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let us down -> big 
time.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:29 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 1:53 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

But many of the same problems persist on the web, and the web has brought 
entirely new challenges. The web has all the same issues of DLL hell - 
different components need different versions of the same component - like the 
other day I saw a project where there required multiple versions of JQuery due 
to different component requirements - and the hacks required to ensure that the 
right version is used for the right components isn't pretty. And apps are no 
longer isolated within the company - you're not developing for a particular SOE 
anymore - but rather a polyglot of devices with different operation systems, 
software, features, sizes, resolutions and capabilities. Testing if anything is 
a longer process than ever before. Licensing for some software is on a per-user 
basis on the web, which brings it's own challenges for anonymous systems. 
Deployment must still go through a full change management process (there are 
still a multitude of things that can go wrong), and when you consider the same 
thing could occur today using one-click deployment, sand-boxed applications, 
and Docker containers, the web doesn't have an ace up its sleeve there either.

In my experience, part of the reason that enterprises prefer stuffing all that 
complexity resolution into the development effort (or getting your vendor to 
take the hit in their development effort) is that it’s project cost. It makes 
it much clearer what the true cost of “application X” is to the business.

If the alternative is passing the cost to BAU/Ops (in terms of managing 
interoperability and keeping an end-user fleet of devices running), it becomes 
far more murky as to what is causing the complexity and how much it’s costing. 
Whoever is funding the project will cut whatever they can (whether it be 
security, sociability testing, monitoring instrumentation), and make it 
Operations problem.

As for “click once” etc. that’s just solving a small technological piece of a 
puzzle. How do I do deployment accounting/licensing etc. via click-once?

My current org is ~40,000 users spread from Sydney to Woomera – do not 
underestimate the complexity of deploying or upgrading anything critical in 
that type of environment: when we used to run a distributed Active Directory 
environment (so that local branches could keep running if the WAN was down), 
simply upgrading AD schema was a 9+ month project, where we ended up auditing 
every DC (around 150 branch ones at the time) to verify that their out-of-band 
management cards were working (about 20 needed replacing, or were not cabled), 
and had to roster tens of support techs to be ready to drive/fly out to a site, 
just in case we had to pull the upgrade process due to something going 
catastrophically wrong. The change had to be done over a long weekend, because 
that was the only time that gave us enough lead time to do an authoritative 
restore. Now, upgrading AD isn’t particularly important to a bank – and if I 
was IT leadership I’d be asking: “why can’t I deploy a core systems upgrade, or 
upgrade online banking during this key window? Why am I upgrading ‘AD’, 
whatever the f*ck that is”

Now, it’s all sitting in our data centres, and we could probably do a scheme 
change overnight if we had too. There are lots of Ops benefits to centralising 
all your core logic and systems.

Cheers
Ken

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[DotNet Dude]

It's tough to conquer this issue because most devs I encounter don't stay
in one place very long and even ones that do get bored of the same old
thing. They need to stay on top of shiny new tech to be employable so when
they can do something in "old" tech x in a week, they fight to do it in
shiny new tech y and take 7 months. This produces a nice addition to the CV
and also keeps them somewhat interested.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> Along with an endless fascination with “shiny new things” at every phase
> of the development process.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:33 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By
> why exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of
> magnitude slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let
> us down -> big time.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:29 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *Nathan
> Schultz
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 1:53 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> But many of the same problems persist on the web, and the web has brought
> entirely new challenges. The web has all the same issues of DLL hell -
> different components need different versions of the same component - like
> the other day I saw a project where there required multiple versions of
> JQuery due to different component requirements - and the hacks required to
> ensure that the right version is used for the right components isn't
> pretty. And apps are no longer isolated within the company - you're not
> developing for a particular SOE anymore - but rather a polyglot of devices
> with different operation systems, software, features, sizes, resolutions
> and capabilities. Testing if anything is a longer process than ever before.
> Licensing for some software is on a per-user basis on the web, which brings
> it's own challenges for anonymous systems. Deployment must still go through
> a full change management process (there are still a multitude of things
> that can go wrong), and when you consider the same thing could occur today
> using one-click deployment, sand-boxed applications, and Docker containers,
> the web doesn't have an ace up its sleeve there either.
>
>
>
> In my experience, part of the reason that enterprises prefer stuffing all
> that complexity resolution into the development effort (or getting your
> vendor to take the hit in their development effort) is that it’s project
> cost. It makes it much clearer what the true cost of “application X” is to
> the business.
>
>
>
> If the alternative is passing the cost to BAU/Ops (in terms of managing
> interoperability and keeping an end-user fleet of devices running), it
> becomes far more murky as to what is causing the complexity and how much
> it’s costing. Whoever is funding the project will cut whatever they can
> (whether it be security, sociability testing, monitoring instrumentation),
> and make it Operations problem.
>
>
>
> As for “click once” etc. that’s just solving a small technological piece
> of a puzzle. How do I do deployment accounting/licensing etc. via
> click-once?
>
>
>
> My current org is ~40,000 users spread from Sydney to Woomera – do not
> underestimate the complexity of deploying or upgrading anything critical in
> that type of environment: when we used to run a distributed Active
> Directory environment (so that local branches could keep running if the WAN
> was down), simply upgrading AD schema was a 9+ month project, where we
> ended up auditing every DC (around 150 branch ones at the time) to verify
> that their out-of-band management cards were working (about 20 needed
> replacing, or were not cabled), and had to roster tens of support techs to
> be ready to drive/fly out to a site, just in c

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

A couple of possible reasons:


-  All the emphasis is on centrally delivered applications (aka web 
based), so that’s where all the innovation and change is happening. It will 
take time for maturity and tooling to catch up.

-  It’s harder to bypass the full technical cost of development when 
something’s centrally delivered. It’s easier to incur “technical debt” when you 
build a little thick-client app – the real cost of the app gets buried in IT 
operations.

Cheers
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Low (??)
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:33 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By why 
exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of magnitude 
slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let us down -> big 
time.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

Ken, I'm curious as to why you think there is less technical debt in
web-applications?

I agree that the web is less mature - but it's not because of lack of time
or tooling. A mate of a mate made millions making web-development software
in the mid 90's (HotDog software), and I was doing web apps in Visual
InterDev (which is before Visual Studio's time).

On 22 November 2016 at 12:13, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

> A couple of possible reasons:
>
>
>
> -  All the emphasis is on centrally delivered applications (aka
> web based), so that’s where all the innovation and change is happening. It
> will take time for maturity and tooling to catch up.
>
> -  It’s harder to bypass the full technical cost of development
> when something’s centrally delivered. It’s easier to incur “technical debt”
> when you build a little thick-client app – the real cost of the app gets
> buried in IT operations.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Low (??????)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:33 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By
> why exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of
> magnitude slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let
> us down -> big time.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

I used HotDog back in 1996 or something cray cray like that. Then I went to
HomeSite and then I made a wrong turn somewhere and did
Coldfusion/DHTML/Java ... it defined me in a lot of ways.

As for Tech Debt, the problem or issue with this entire JavaScript / Web
mediocrity or bust is nothing really advances other than shortcuts to solve
already solved issues. We've not really moved the needle forward we just
obfuscated the stench better, as when you look at the web today vs even
when Plugins were all the rage, at least the plugins forced the world into
a different gear instead of this ongoing "natural" we seemed to be in. Oh
but its different now as we shifted the boundaries a little and made the
browser the plugin (hows that working out btw).

Developer maturity is now reduced to "*here's the latest flavour we
conjured today to its best to abstract you from thinking about JavaScript
its purest form instead we're gonna just make up some attributes to bolt
onto your DOM/Node structure and you just have to guess along with us as we
progress this forward*"

I'm not jaded about the web, but I feel JavaScript / Node etc is the
digital herpes of internets. Outbreaks occur every 3-4 years and still no
cure. Ok.. i'm jaded ;D

Reliance on event based layout systems may have been a great idea when CPU
was a variable to factor into our existence but if we can all move forward
to a FPS model, whereby we firstly work to a "how many things do i need to
do to prepare for a visual frame change" whilst also making some sweet love
to an async / yield discipline to discreet work...that'd greeaat..

Next comes Screen targeting and this weird game of UX Tetris whereby dev
teams place "user experience" onto a pedestal up until the point where
Responsive vs Adaptive wars break out, then its reverting back to
"developer knows best" response(s)... again...

I'm just saying... if Serverside / Client-side JavaScript is still the best
idea of the day, what was the worst?

---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Nathan Schultz  wrote:

> Ken, I'm curious as to why you think there is less technical debt in
> web-applications?
>
> I agree that the web is less mature - but it's not because of lack of time
> or tooling. A mate of a mate made millions making web-development software
> in the mid 90's (HotDog software), and I was doing web apps in Visual
> InterDev (which is before Visual Studio's time).
>
> On 22 November 2016 at 12:13, Ken Schaefer  wrote:
>
>> A couple of possible reasons:
>>
>>
>>
>> -  All the emphasis is on centrally delivered applications (aka
>> web based), so that’s where all the innovation and change is happening. It
>> will take time for maturity and tooling to catch up.
>>
>> -  It’s harder to bypass the full technical cost of development
>> when something’s centrally delivered. It’s easier to incur “technical debt”
>> when you build a little thick-client app – the real cost of the app gets
>> buried in IT operations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
>> net.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Low (??)
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:33 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet 
>> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By
>> why exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of
>> magnitude slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let
>> us down -> big time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Greg Low
>>
>>
>>
>> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
>> fax
>>
>> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

I’m also seeing diabolical messes in the devops on the web apps too though.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 3:14 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

A couple of possible reasons:


-  All the emphasis is on centrally delivered applications (aka web 
based), so that’s where all the innovation and change is happening. It will 
take time for maturity and tooling to catch up.

-  It’s harder to bypass the full technical cost of development when 
something’s centrally delivered. It’s easier to incur “technical debt” when you 
build a little thick-client app – the real cost of the app gets buried in IT 
operations.

Cheers
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Greg Low (??)
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 2:33 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

But that’s a centralized vs distributed argument. I understand that. By why 
exactly does a centralized development process have to be orders of magnitude 
slower than a distributed one? I just think the tooling has let us down -> big 
time.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

Well, I used Hotdog, Dreamweaver, Interdev (back in the ASP days!) – but you 
can’t say that tooling’s good just because there’s lots of it. It needs to 
actually solve problems at hand, and my experience in any fast moving area, is 
that the tooling takes a while to catch up. Firstly the landscape has to settle 
down, then the tooling needs to mature to reflect the best practises/patterns 
for how people are using the technology.

Re technical debt: to be clear with our following readers, I would say that 
technical debt are those compromises/choices that are made during 
development/standup that you know will have to be remediated or cause costs to 
be incurred elsewhere to support the solution (throwing your costs “over the 
fence”)

Technical debt can then be divided into a couple of camps:

-  accepted technical debt: management has accepted the debt (and 
future remediation or ongoing cost) because the alternative are unpalatable. 
For example:

o   we may still be deploying applications on Windows Server 2003, even though 
we’re paying for a custom support agreement, because the alternative – 
upgrading the whole application ecosystem to a supported OS, is simply not 
doable (technically, financially, whatever) in the current budget cycle. We may 
have to buy a new version of the app, or upgrade our tooling (monitoring, 
backup, security suite etc), or retest everything on a 64bit platform.

o   we may still be buying obsolete, expensive WAN connections simply because 
we have an existing agreements with our various suppliers that allow us to meet 
application performance and availability SLAs and have known outcomes/issues, 
because the alternative (re-tendering for WAN connections) is unpalatable.
In both cases, everything will need to be overhauled/remediated over time, and 
we’re paying less now knowing we’ll pay more in future. But the cost is 
accepted.


-  unacknowledged technical debt: in this case, the true cost of the 
solution isn’t known and accepted upfront. Choices are made (even with the best 
intentions) to meet project timelines/budget that don’t cater for the full set 
of use cases. Generally I would say it’s harder to ignore or “slip this past 
steering committee” when you have a centrally delivered web based solution. 
Much of the infrastructure complexity “goes away” – servers, storage, bandwidth 
are easy to procure in data centres, and UAT testing is relatively 
straightforward. When you have a thick-client deployment, then infrastructure 
comes back into play (OSes, platform dependencies, distribution/deployment 
systems, end-to-end monitoring etc) and UAT tends to be truncated. No one goes 
looking for all the corner cases of “certain hardware models, with certain 
OSes, with certain other apps installed, and certain peripherals installed” and 
even if a problem manifests itself, we try to brush it under the carpet, 
because flying out to back-of-nowhere to troubleshoot the end user’s problem 
isn’t viable. So it becomes BAU/Operations problem (and cost). And most 
crucially, every time you deploy another thick-client app, you look to, and 
lock in, all the stuff that currently exists and is hard to change – OS 
version, supporting frameworks (JVMs, .NET, citrix clients, AV, backup) 
firewall rules, deployment technologies, network, telco, helpdesk. Trying to 
upgrade any of that stuff, across tens of thousands of clients, with a thousand 
apps, is very expensive [1]

Now, to be fair, I will say that I’ve pretty much only worked in large(r) 
enterprise type environments, so my experience may not be representative of 
what’s out there in the mainstream. In simpler environments, this may all be a 
moot point. But in the large complex environments, we have decades of 
accumulated debt – stuff that would go away if we had unlimited time, resources 
and money. But we don’t – most crucial is probably time – there’s only 365 days 
in a year and that limits change windows. And second is money – we spend $1.1 – 
1.2 billion dollars a year on tech. It’s not insignificant, we yet we still 
have 16bit apps, and are running things that aren’t supported or are no longer 
manufactured. Life is crazy ☺

Regards
Ken

[1] Relatively. It might be, say, a $30-50m project, which isn’t expensive in 
banking per se – upgrading a major channel system would be 5x that, and a core 
systems refresh would be 10x that (at least), but replacing an end-user 
computing environment doesn’t really provide much business benefit compared to 
those other things



From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 4:05 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

Ken, I'm curious as to why you think there is less technical debt in 
web-applications?

I agree that the web is less mature - but it's not because of lack of time or 
tooling. A mate of a mate made millions making web-developmen

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

>
> Well, I used Hotdog
>

[This is a Friday topic but] Good god! I remember seeing a prominent
newpaper picture back in 1996 of Steve Outtrim lounging back in his
Ferrari, purchased on the sales of HotDog HTML editor (apparently he was
too young to get insurance for a Porsche). Writing HTML was the new fad and
tech-wonder back then and there were no friendly editors around, so I can
understand how he filled a gap just at the right time, but to make millions
with that piece of amateurish VB4 piffle! ... it made me weep for humanity.
Within a year or so we had "real" products like Dreamweaver and FrontPage
which mercifully crushed Susage software into a footnote of IT history.

Back on JS though ... I read most of the ECMA and MSDN articles on the
Javascript language reference last night as a reminder, and I forgot how
small the language is. It's technically impressive that so many complex
frameworks and products can be made from such a small language, which is a
result of its dynamic typing and half-arsed functional features. Then I
went searching for stuff like "JavasScript project structure" for good
advice on how to manage JS projects with lots of code and files, and how to
keep it modular. I soon discovered there are no "standards", just a great
variety of opinions, arguments and workarounds to deal with JS scoping
peculiarities. JS also doesn't seem to have any concept of "sets of source
files" (there is no compiler), so there is also no concept of "using" or
"include" or namespaces. So someone invents RequireJS and so on, and the JS
zoo nightmare begins. Committes are spending their lives standardising the
JS language, but the tooling and libraries have been forgotten and left to
hobbyists and students writing 2nd year Uni projects.

*Greg K*

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

The whole web committee structure is why we are stuck in purgatory quagmire
swamp of hell.

For example, when ECMA 4th Edition almost got legs to move JS forward but
Adobe were being a bit of a political animal when it came to hedging their
technical bets. Basically, at the time Adobe donated a bunch of tech to
Mozilla foundation (
http://blogs.adobe.com/billmccoy/2006/11/adobe_open_sour.html)  to set the
stage for ActionScript to become more legitimate under the ECMA umbrella,
but in doing so would have likely moved Flash deeper into the acceptance
online beyond HTML. Keeping in mind Flash in 2006 was so popular that
Google/Microsoft saw it as a likely threat to the web, given if everyone
moved off transparent HTML and into a more encompassed tech such as a
runtime like Flash, well, Google for one would have been starved of revenue
oxygen (as you can't index .swf files at the time). There were a few other
political issues but essentially ECMA really went into a major stall after
that and its only once Flash has knifed that the actual momentum behind
JavaScript picked back up again (sure it was being used despite Flash's
existence but it wasn't as prolific in adoption as it is today).

Like I say to many people - another word for a Flash is... a silver light,
and the roadmap for Silverlight was glued on top of a briefcase that also
said "Open when Flash is dead" and then inside that briefcase was a note
"Now delete Silverlight". There's what you folks see on the official
minutes and then there's the "beyond the curtain" corporate brand story...




---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Well, I used Hotdog
>>
>
> [This is a Friday topic but] Good god! I remember seeing a prominent
> newpaper picture back in 1996 of Steve Outtrim lounging back in his
> Ferrari, purchased on the sales of HotDog HTML editor (apparently he was
> too young to get insurance for a Porsche). Writing HTML was the new fad and
> tech-wonder back then and there were no friendly editors around, so I can
> understand how he filled a gap just at the right time, but to make millions
> with that piece of amateurish VB4 piffle! ... it made me weep for humanity.
> Within a year or so we had "real" products like Dreamweaver and FrontPage
> which mercifully crushed Susage software into a footnote of IT history.
>
> Back on JS though ... I read most of the ECMA and MSDN articles on the
> Javascript language reference last night as a reminder, and I forgot how
> small the language is. It's technically impressive that so many complex
> frameworks and products can be made from such a small language, which is a
> result of its dynamic typing and half-arsed functional features. Then I
> went searching for stuff like "JavasScript project structure" for good
> advice on how to manage JS projects with lots of code and files, and how to
> keep it modular. I soon discovered there are no "standards", just a great
> variety of opinions, arguments and workarounds to deal with JS scoping
> peculiarities. JS also doesn't seem to have any concept of "sets of source
> files" (there is no compiler), so there is also no concept of "using" or
> "include" or namespaces. So someone invents RequireJS and so on, and the JS
> zoo nightmare begins. Committes are spending their lives standardising the
> JS language, but the tooling and libraries have been forgotten and left to
> hobbyists and students writing 2nd year Uni projects.
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

@Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
Martin Fowler's.
Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt
;-)

I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world (where
you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities). Although to be
fair, I try to avoid thick-clients due to the support headaches - it's a
lot harder to roll-out a patch. The last one I had to write was only last
year (out of necessity), and was rolled out to half a dozen companies
(although limited to Australia and NZ) as part of a product we sell, but
fortunately it's given us very little grief. I made a conscious effort to
push all business logic into centralised web-services (which are hosted by
the companies) and left the clients as effectively just shells (and so far
no updates have been required on the clients - only the web-services). But
my view-point is primarily as a developer, and I can only comment on issues
that have come back to me. Personally I find web-development harder - it's
far less feature rich, more 'hacks' are required (which obfuscates intent
making it harder to maintain and refactor), and testing cycles are longer.
JavaScript was not written with teams in mind (classes are really just a
hack in JavaScript), it's difficult to write unit-tests for (e.g. (1, 2, 3)
!= (1, 2, 3) in JavaScript). And being a dynamic language, it's not
possible for tools to provide Intellisense support and many of the tools
that are expected today. And worse; many problems can only be found at
run-time. So I don't think it's a problem with the tools, but rather
limitations with the underlying platform. It's why 'transpiled' languages
are all the rage, but they're treating the symptom, not the cause.

The company I work for is far bigger, but it's an international
conglomerate, and I don't want it to seem like your experiences are any
less valid; I think we've just arrived at different viewpoints.

I largely agree with Scott on the standards committee causing the mess
(effectively ensuring JavaScript is the lingua franca). Even for some major
issues, I think glaciers would move faster than them in addressing. But
Scott's had a lot more skin in the game, and knows far more than I do in
this regard.

On 23 November 2016 at 07:46, Scott Barnes  wrote:

> The whole web committee structure is why we are stuck in purgatory
> quagmire swamp of hell.
>
> For example, when ECMA 4th Edition almost got legs to move JS forward but
> Adobe were being a bit of a political animal when it came to hedging their
> technical bets. Basically, at the time Adobe donated a bunch of tech to
> Mozilla foundation (http://blogs.adobe.com/billmccoy/2006/11/adobe_open_
> sour.html)  to set the stage for ActionScript to become more
> legitimate under the ECMA umbrella, but in doing so would have likely moved
> Flash deeper into the acceptance online beyond HTML. Keeping in mind Flash
> in 2006 was so popular that Google/Microsoft saw it as a likely threat to
> the web, given if everyone moved off transparent HTML and into a more
> encompassed tech such as a runtime like Flash, well, Google for one would
> have been starved of revenue oxygen (as you can't index .swf files at the
> time). There were a few other political issues but essentially ECMA really
> went into a major stall after that and its only once Flash has knifed that
> the actual momentum behind JavaScript picked back up again (sure it was
> being used despite Flash's existence but it wasn't as prolific in adoption
> as it is today).
>
> Like I say to many people - another word for a Flash is... a silver light,
> and the roadmap for Silverlight was glued on top of a briefcase that also
> said "Open when Flash is dead" and then inside that briefcase was a note
> "Now delete Silverlight". There's what you folks see on the official
> minutes and then there's the "beyond the curtain" corporate brand story...
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.riagenic.com
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
>
>> Well, I used Hotdog
>>>
>>
>> [This is a Friday topic but] Good god! I remember seeing a prominent
>> newpaper picture back in 1996 of Steve Outtrim lounging back in his
>> Ferrari, purchased on the sales of HotDog HTML editor (apparently he was
>> too young to get insurance for a Porsche). Writing HTML was the new fad and
>> tech-wonder back then and there were no friendly editors around, so I can
>> understand how he filled a gap just at the right time, but to make millions
>> with that piece of amateurish VB4 piffle! ... it made me weep for humanity.
>> Within a year or so we had "real" products like Dreamweaver and FrontPage
>> which mercifully crushed Susage software into a footnote of IT history.
>>
>> Back on JS though ... I read most of the ECMA and M

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

@Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of 
Martin Fowler's.
Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt ;-)

I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world (where you 
sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a quadruple 
monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different OS's, software, 
plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).

I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you were 
to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s breakfast 
of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d need to ship 
etc?

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key drivers
were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients are simply
not transportable.
So the simple answer is, you don't.

On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
> Martin Fowler's.
>
> Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt
> ;-)
>
>
>
> I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world
> (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
> quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
> OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).
>
>
>
> I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you
> were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s
> breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d
> need to ship etc?
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

Thick clients can be more easily done today with platforms like Unity3D for
example. Ignore its a game thing and focus instead on its 2D/3D rendering
pipeline, as once you get socketed into this you start to realise that the
targeting platforms issues fall away quite quickly reducing you back to
where you should be - screen size targeting.

Making "Web apps" today is really a retreat position as companies are
facing a few issues that they are either putting off or a bit to scared to
face. Some will dip their toes in the Xamarin waters but will soon realise
that to achieve this you're still playing the IF/ELSE whack-o-mole games
that you'd likely end up playing anyway with web (granted some of the
various flavours of the npm new world obfuscate that process for you in
parts).

It all comes really back to that tag line we used to roll out in 2007 in
the three grades of "experience" you want the users to have when building
said apps... "Good (web), Great (plugins) and Ultimate (native)" .. now
since "Great" has been shot in the back of the head, you're now reduced to
"Good enough" vs "Ultimate" which is really now "depth" vs "breadth".

I don't see the web (breadth) playing giving far too much competitive
advantage as more and more solutions are shifting away into a more deeper
experience and with 3D lurking on the horizon again, it could go either way
..like it could crash yet again for the 4th time in history or it could now
escalate further ..so do you then go WebGL route or just bite down on
platforms like Unity3D etc to go deeper...






---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
> Martin Fowler's.
>
> Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt
> ;-)
>
>
>
> I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world
> (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
> quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
> OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).
>
>
>
> I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you
> were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s
> breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d
> need to ship etc?
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[mike smith]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> Totally agree Greg. About 80% of what we are currently building could be
>> done in 1/10 of the time using winforms or mvc.
>>
>
> So there are lots of crazy people in here ... Fabulous!
>
> I can also write Winforms or WPF apps in 1/10 (or far less) the time of
> equivalent JS code. I have also had Clickone working perfectly 10 years
> ago. I also really miss Silverlight.
>
> Writing anything in JS is the most tediously slow and frustrating
> experience of my career (trying to make Xamarin apps work is a close
> second, but that's another story). The crude IDEs, the immature language
> definition, the poor tooling, lack of conventions, too much choice and
> duplication, jumbled dependencies, etc, all drag you down and backwards.
> After 35 years of coding, I have a ache in my guts telling me that
> something is WRONG with JavaScript, it's the WRONG thing for the WRONG job,
> but it just won't friggin' die.
>
> I only found out about Electron several weeks ago when I wondered how they
> had written Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer 
> so it runs on Windows and OSX. By poking around in the files you will see
> clues that it's "Electron" ... which turns out to be a JS framework for
> writing desktop apps, holy sh*t. That also explains why it feels a bit
> weird to use.
>
> Oh well, back to C# and "real" development...
>
> *GK*
>

sed 's/c#/c++/'

FIFY

-- 
Meski

 http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv

"Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure,
you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web 
world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as “the 
web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these clients – it’s 
simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key drivers 
were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients are simply not 
transportable.
So the simple answer is, you don't.

On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

@Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of 
Martin Fowler's.
Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt ;-)

I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world (where you 
sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a quadruple 
monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different OS's, software, 
plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).

I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you were 
to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s breakfast 
of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d need to ship 
etc?

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

So it then comes back to tooling again.

Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it deployed in 
the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix the underlying 
mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web 
world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as “the 
web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these clients – it’s 
simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key drivers 
were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients are simply not 
transportable.
So the simple answer is, you don't.

On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

@Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of 
Martin Fowler's.
Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt ;-)

I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world (where you 
sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a quadruple 
monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different OS's, software, 
plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).

I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you were 
to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s breakfast 
of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d need to ship 
etc?

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

"It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is staring
at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so hard to
develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the OSS
rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class citizen
approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but until
revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be additive
biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.

Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not
as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well
behind us now.






---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> So it then comes back to tooling again.
>
>
>
> Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it
> deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix
> the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web
> world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as
> “the web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these
> clients – it’s simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *Nathan
> Schultz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key
> drivers were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients
> are simply not transportable.
>
> So the simple answer is, you don't.
>
>
>
> On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
> Martin Fowler's.
>
> Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt
> ;-)
>
>
>
> I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world
> (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
> quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
> OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).
>
>
>
> I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you
> were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s
> breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d
> need to ship etc?
>
>
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in 
productivity?

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low
1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com>


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on behalf 
of Scott Barnes 
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

"It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is staring at 
Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so hard to develop 
for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the OSS rhetoric, 
Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class citizen approach to 
roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but until revenue models 
change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be additive biproduct / bonus 
rounds outside that.

Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not as 
"drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well behind us 
now.






---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
mailto:g...@greglow.com>> wrote:
So it then comes back to tooling again.

Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it deployed in 
the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix the underlying 
mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 
419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 
4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web 
world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as “the 
web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these clients �C it’s 
simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key drivers 
were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients are simply not 
transportable.
So the simple answer is, you don't.

On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

@Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of 
Martin Fowler's.
Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt ;-)

I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world (where you 
sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a quadruple 
monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different OS's, software, 
plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).

I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you were 
to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s breakfast 
of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d need to ship 
etc?

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche that
Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain it's
now dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe it's an
area that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.

On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in
> productivity?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> Dr Greg Low
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>
> --
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Scott Barnes 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
> "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is
> staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so
> hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the
> OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class
> citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but
> until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be
> additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.
>
> Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not
> as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well
> behind us now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.riagenic.com
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
> wrote:
>
>> So it then comes back to tooling again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it
>> deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix
>> the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Greg Low
>>
>>
>>
>> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
>> fax
>>
>> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
>> net.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet 
>> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the
>> “web world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients”
>> as “the web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these
>> clients – it’s simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
>> net.com ] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet 
>> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key
>> drivers were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients
>> are simply not transportable.
>>
>> So the simple answer is, you don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ozdot
>> net.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet 
>> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
>> Martin Fowler's.
>>
>> Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical
>> Debt ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world
>> (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
>> quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
>> OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you
>> were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s
>> breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d
>> need to ship etc?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche that 
Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain it's now 
dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe it's an area 
that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.

On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
mailto:g...@greglow.com>> wrote:
But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in 
productivity?
Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low
1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ 
+61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com>


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> on behalf 
of Scott Barnes mailto:scott.bar...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
To: ozDotNet

Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

"It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is staring at 
Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so hard to develop 
for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the OSS rhetoric, 
Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class citizen approach to 
roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but until revenue models 
change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be additive biproduct / bonus 
rounds outside that.

Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not as 
"drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well behind us 
now.






---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
mailto:g...@greglow.com>> wrote:
So it then comes back to tooling again.

Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it deployed in 
the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix the underlying 
mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 
419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 
4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/> | 
http://greglow.me<http://greglow.me/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web 
world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as “the 
web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these clients – it’s 
simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key drivers 
were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients are simply not 
transportable.
So the simple answer is, you don't.

On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:


From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

@Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of 
Martin Fowler's.
Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt ;-)

I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world (where you 
sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a quadruple 
monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different OS's, software, 
plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).

I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you were 
to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s breakfast 
of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d need to ship 
etc?

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[DotNet Dude]

If in VS and not javascript then productive, else not productive.

On Friday, 25 November 2016, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in
> productivity?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> Dr Greg Low
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>
> --
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>  <
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
> > on
> behalf of Scott Barnes  >
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
> "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is
> staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so
> hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the
> OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class
> citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but
> until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be
> additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.
>
> Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not
> as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well
> behind us now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.riagenic.com
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  > wrote:
>
>> So it then comes back to tooling again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it
>> deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix
>> the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Greg Low
>>
>>
>>
>> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
>> fax
>>
>> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>>  [mailto:
>> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>> ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet > >
>> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the
>> “web world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients”
>> as “the web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these
>> clients – it’s simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>>  [
>> mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>> ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet > >
>> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key
>> drivers were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients
>> are simply not transportable.
>>
>> So the simple answer is, you don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>>  [mailto:
>> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>> ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
>> *To:* ozDotNet > >
>> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
>> Martin Fowler's.
>>
>> Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical
>> Debt ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world
>> (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
>> quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
>> OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you
>> were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s
>> breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d
>> need to ship etc?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

>
> If in VS and not javascript then productive, else not productive.


Not quite, more general: If JavaScript then not productive ;-)

Slick and professional tooling supporting a language ecosystem is of vital
importance to me and I hope others feel the same way. You can buy the
coolest most fantastic new car which promises everything you could possibly
want, but then you find there's no driver manual, service centres are
hundreds of miles apart, it needs special expensive petrol, no parts are
exchangeable with any other brand and the support call centre staff only
speak Portuguese ... my experience with a lot of software over the decades.

*Greg K*

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

Because it's easier to feed the HTML/JavaScript beast than it was to
enforce a stricter discipline.  Even more harder now that the combination
of the two is so fluid on a yearly basis. Attaching a tool today to
HTML/JavaScript/WebGL is dangerous as...what framework do you agree is the
"norm" (angular 1? angular 2? react? )

The why Microsoft dialled back is simple - it's tried to pioneer and was
punished for it. It lost far too much ground with Silverlight / Internet
Explorer failure(s) and couldn't convince creative pipelines to adopt
Expression (thousands of reasons why mind you).

Microsoft found it was easier to stabilise the losses via the web than it
was to try and push the WPF/Silverlight experiments forward (even now with
UWP). When you have companies like Google/Adobe constantly pumping up the
web crowd with their wares it, in turn, creates a necessary beast to feed
on Microsoft's part. As if you don't have skin in the tool/platform areas
of the web you, in turn, lose a foothold not just in Tool/OS adoptions
(when I was there it was losing 5-10%+ market share in server adoption
every quarter) but even as far as Search/Advertising.

In order to retain stronger relevance, Microsoft had to dial back its
"thick-ware" strategy and instead opt for a more focused breadth play
(thin-ware), specifically having to reinvent its culture
internally/externally to match. In turn you regain lost server share, build
a good will bridge between the new web crowd and lost crowds, reduce the
whole risk associated with UWP/WPF/Silverlight and try again to push IE to
a newer audience (hoping they'd forget the sins of the past - which they
haven't).

The investment in UWP is nowhere as it once was with WPF and that was a
signal to the market that it is really not a serious contender. The
attempts now to dial back .NET to be some uber npm style packaged system
you can opt in/out of is probably going to give some more points on the
board around developer frameworks but in truth, the entire tooling story is
just floundering still. Even today when you look at "Visual Studio for Mac"
it's really just the Xamarin Studio / Mono Developer IDE with its logos
scrubbed out, it's the same trick just with a different shirt.

If designers are adopting SketchApp / Illustrator and then the plethora of
prototyping "web apps" out there then what's really connecting the creative
pipeline back to the developer end zone? Visual Studio? ... so cutting off
the "design' supply means its back to Circa 2006 days where devs wait
patiently outside the designer teams "repo" for a highly detailed markup of
the intended designs (which they'll likely only match 20% of the time).
Failing that the devs likely will then bootstrap some CSS/JS "look mah, I'm
designing" Github repo and make an attempt at developer art.

So once you crack the middle between "design" and "develop" you really end
up having a delivery cycle that can't adhere to modern standards, moreover,
the backwards step is then fragmented more because it's less obvious.
WinForms sucked but you could reduce the developer story to a more focused
conversation like "how many more datagrids you going to add on that screen
dude?" .

Today ..it's different, now its "holy crap, anyone got a good data grid
control...meh.. I'm just gonna dump out a  tag and move on.."

The script kiddies took over and they are quicker to market than the
alternatives, but the experiences are way less and somehow the balance has
been struck between user adoption(s) and "meh experiences" ... we've
erected a huge monument to mediocrity and we're still not sure why people
keep visiting it.


---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in
> productivity?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> Dr Greg Low
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>
> --
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Scott Barnes 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
> "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is
> staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so
> hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the
> OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class
> citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but
> until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Nathan Schultz]

@Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or
SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.

On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:

> Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM
>
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche
> that Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain
> it's now dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe
> it's an area that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.
>
>
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
> But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in
> productivity?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> Dr Greg Low
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>
>
> ----------
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Scott Barnes 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is
> staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so
> hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the
> OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class
> citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but
> until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be
> additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.
>
>
>
> Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not
> as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well
> behind us now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.riagenic.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
> wrote:
>
> So it then comes back to tooling again.
>
>
>
> Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it
> deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix
> the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web
> world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as
> “the web world is the only feasible answer to catering for all these
> clients – it’s simply not financially feasible to do it via thick clients”
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *Nathan
> Schultz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:40 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> As I said in my first e-mail, (when Greg was wondering what the key
> drivers were for web-development), I said "accessibility". Thick clients
> are simply not transportable.
>
> So the simple answer is, you don't.
>
>
>
> On 23 November 2016 at 14:21, Ken Schaefer  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 November 2016 5:10 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Ken, your definition of Technical Debt isn't that different from that of
> Martin Fowler's.
>
> Although I'd say (with some seriousness) that JavaScript is Technical Debt
> ;-)
>
>
>
> I've found many of the things you mention far worse in the web-world
> (where you sometimes have to cater for everything from a mobile phone to a
> quadruple monitor desk-top, and everything in-between, all with different
> OS's, software, plug-ins, versions, and incompatibilities).
>
>
>
> I’m curious to know how you’d cater for this variety of consumers if you
> were to do thick-client development? Wouldn’t that be even more of a dog’s
> breakfast of OSes, development environments/languages, pre-requisites you’d
> need to ship etc?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Paul Glavich]

Ahh the recurring thread about how immature the JS/Web dev community is and how 
hard it is to do anything “right”.

 

All I will say is we asked for it. If we didn’t ask for it, we accepted it. If 
we didn’t accept it, we assumed that the new was good and ran with it.

 

We make a whole lot of assumptions on server side tech and place a whole deal 
of constraints and measures on it.

 

Not so on client dev. Massive external dependencies are abhorrent on server 
side. On client side, they are celebrated (to cite an example).

 

We built it and promoted it. It is on us, not the vendors.

 

I *think* Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how hard it 
was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You have learnt 
what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech just because Scott 
Hanselmann mentioned it.

 

Caveat: I am an old bastard. This argument is not new, but it is compounded by 
an increase in velocity in general.

 

-  Glav

 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 4:13 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

@Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or 
SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.

 

On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) mailto:g...@greglow.com> > wrote:

Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.

 

Regards,

 

Greg

 

Dr Greg Low

 

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410   
mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913   fax 

SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com |  
<http://greglow.me/> http://greglow.me

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ] 
On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM


To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche that 
Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain it's now 
dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe it's an area 
that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.

 

On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) mailto:g...@greglow.com> > wrote:

But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in 
productivity?

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low
1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410   
mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913   fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com <http://www.sqldownunder.com> 

 

  _  

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> > on 
behalf of Scott Barnes mailto:scott.bar...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
To: ozDotNet


Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

"It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is staring at 
Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so hard to develop 
for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the OSS rhetoric, 
Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class citizen approach to 
roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but until revenue models 
change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be additive biproduct / bonus 
rounds outside that. 

 

Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not as 
"drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well behind us 
now.

 

 

 

 

 




---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

 

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) mailto:g...@greglow.com> > wrote:

So it then comes back to tooling again.

 

Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it deployed in 
the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix the underlying 
mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.

 

Regards,

 

Greg

 

Dr Greg Low

 

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775  ) office | +61 419201410 
  mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913   
fax 

SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com |  
<http://greglow.me/> http://greglow.me

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ] 
On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2016 9:41 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

I guess the conclusion I would draw from that is not so much that the “web 
world is so much worse because we have to cater for all these clients” as “the 
web world is the only

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

So Paul, you're basically saying "The standard we walk past, is the
standard we accept" hehe :)

---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Paul Glavich 
wrote:

> Ahh the recurring thread about how immature the JS/Web dev community is
> and how hard it is to do anything “right”.
>
>
>
> All I will say is we asked for it. If we didn’t ask for it, we accepted
> it. If we didn’t accept it, we assumed that the new was good and ran with
> it.
>
>
>
> We make a whole lot of assumptions on server side tech and place a whole
> deal of constraints and measures on it.
>
>
>
> Not so on client dev. Massive external dependencies are abhorrent on
> server side. On client side, they are celebrated (to cite an example).
>
>
>
> We built it and promoted it. It is on us, not the vendors.
>
>
>
> I **think** Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how
> hard it was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You
> have learnt what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech
> just because Scott Hanselmann mentioned it.
>
>
>
> Caveat: I am an old bastard. This argument is not new, but it is
> compounded by an increase in velocity in general.
>
>
>
> -  Glav
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2016 4:13 PM
>
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or
> SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.
>
>
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
> Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM
>
>
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche
> that Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain
> it's now dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe
> it's an area that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.
>
>
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
> But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in
> productivity?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> Dr Greg Low
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Scott Barnes 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is
> staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so
> hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the
> OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class
> citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but
> until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be
> additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.
>
>
>
> Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not
> as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well
> behind us now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.riagenic.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
> wrote:
>
> So it then comes back to tooling again.
>
>
>
> Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it
> deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix
> the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:*

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Paul Glavich]

Yeah pretty much :)

 

I am a web guy through and through and I don’t mean to hack on people 
specifically, but as an industry it still manifests as real immaturity. I also 
don’t mean to suggest we don’t use and play with the new stuff either but the 
level of acceptance, particularly from people way smarter than me, is puzzling. 
It is real easy to be critical (like I have here…. ) so providing feedback on 
progress is pretty important. Doesn’t always work as momentum can carry it 
through (I am looking at you Angular2).

 

My rather rambling and opinionated point is that on a few engagements, I have 
recommended to not use the shiny new stuff, in favour of older but well known, 
and easier to maintain frameworks (after assessment of timeframes, people’s 
skillsets etc). Not using the latest in those cases has proven to be a boon, 
rather than an impediment. Sure it is lower on the coolness scale, and could be 
replaced with newer stuff later (obviously with a little rework) but it is 
working very well. It kind of suggests we perhaps invented part of the problem 
to solve in the first place. So I think play and assess the new stuff (like 
Greg has), but don’t blindly accept. Then engage and provide some form of 
influence or feedback so we don’t re-introduce the same mess in another 10 
years.

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2016 9:40 PM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

So Paul, you're basically saying "The standard we walk past, is the standard we 
accept" hehe :)




---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

 

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Paul Glavich mailto:subscripti...@theglavs.com> > wrote:

Ahh the recurring thread about how immature the JS/Web dev community is and how 
hard it is to do anything “right”.

 

All I will say is we asked for it. If we didn’t ask for it, we accepted it. If 
we didn’t accept it, we assumed that the new was good and ran with it.

 

We make a whole lot of assumptions on server side tech and place a whole deal 
of constraints and measures on it.

 

Not so on client dev. Massive external dependencies are abhorrent on server 
side. On client side, they are celebrated (to cite an example).

 

We built it and promoted it. It is on us, not the vendors.

 

I *think* Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how hard it 
was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You have learnt 
what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech just because Scott 
Hanselmann mentioned it.

 

Caveat: I am an old bastard. This argument is not new, but it is compounded by 
an increase in velocity in general.

 

-  Glav

 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ] 
On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 4:13 PM


To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

@Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or 
SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.

 

On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) mailto:g...@greglow.com> > wrote:

Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.

 

Regards,

 

Greg

 

Dr Greg Low

 

1300SQLSQL   (1300 775 775) office |  
 +61 419201410 mobile│   
+61 3 8676 4913 fax 

SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com |  
<http://greglow.me/> http://greglow.me

 

From:  <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com 
[mailto: <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] 
On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM


To: ozDotNet < <mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche that 
Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain it's now 
dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe it's an area 
that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.

 

On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) < <mailto:g...@greglow.com> 
g...@greglow.com> wrote:

But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in 
productivity?

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low
1300SQLSQL   (1300 775 775) office |  
 +61 419201410 mobile│   
+61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com> www.sqldownunder.com

 


  _  


From:  <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com < 
<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> on behalf 
of

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Connors]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 at 20:32 Paul Glavich 
wrote:

> You have learnt what not to do, not how to do something with the latest
> tech just because Scott Hanselmann mentioned it.
>

This made me chuckle.

David.

-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Adrian Halid]

If you were to start a new Enterprise Web Project which has the potential to be 
continually developed and enhanced over 5 to 10 years what web technology 
frameworks would you choose?

 

Regards

 

Adrian Halid 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Paul Glavich
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 6:18 AM
To: 'ozDotNet' 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

Yeah pretty much :)

 

I am a web guy through and through and I don’t mean to hack on people 
specifically, but as an industry it still manifests as real immaturity. I also 
don’t mean to suggest we don’t use and play with the new stuff either but the 
level of acceptance, particularly from people way smarter than me, is puzzling. 
It is real easy to be critical (like I have here…. ) so providing feedback on 
progress is pretty important. Doesn’t always work as momentum can carry it 
through (I am looking at you Angular2).

 

My rather rambling and opinionated point is that on a few engagements, I have 
recommended to not use the shiny new stuff, in favour of older but well known, 
and easier to maintain frameworks (after assessment of timeframes, people’s 
skillsets etc). Not using the latest in those cases has proven to be a boon, 
rather than an impediment. Sure it is lower on the coolness scale, and could be 
replaced with newer stuff later (obviously with a little rework) but it is 
working very well. It kind of suggests we perhaps invented part of the problem 
to solve in the first place. So I think play and assess the new stuff (like 
Greg has), but don’t blindly accept. Then engage and provide some form of 
influence or feedback so we don’t re-introduce the same mess in another 10 
years.

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2016 9:40 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

So Paul, you're basically saying "The standard we walk past, is the standard we 
accept" hehe :)




---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

 

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Paul Glavich mailto:subscripti...@theglavs.com> > wrote:

Ahh the recurring thread about how immature the JS/Web dev community is and how 
hard it is to do anything “right”.

 

All I will say is we asked for it. If we didn’t ask for it, we accepted it. If 
we didn’t accept it, we assumed that the new was good and ran with it.

 

We make a whole lot of assumptions on server side tech and place a whole deal 
of constraints and measures on it.

 

Not so on client dev. Massive external dependencies are abhorrent on server 
side. On client side, they are celebrated (to cite an example).

 

We built it and promoted it. It is on us, not the vendors.

 

I *think* Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how hard it 
was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You have learnt 
what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech just because Scott 
Hanselmann mentioned it.

 

Caveat: I am an old bastard. This argument is not new, but it is compounded by 
an increase in velocity in general.

 

-  Glav

 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ] 
On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 4:13 PM


To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

@Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or 
SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.

 

On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) mailto:g...@greglow.com> > wrote:

Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.

 

Regards,

 

Greg

 

Dr Greg Low

 

1300SQLSQL   (1300 775 775) office |  
 +61 419201410 mobile│   
+61 3 8676 4913 fax 

SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com |  
<http://greglow.me/> http://greglow.me

 

From:  <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com 
[mailto: <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] 
On Behalf Of Nathan Schultz
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM


To: ozDotNet < <mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche that 
Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain it's now 
dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe it's an area 
that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.

 

On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) < <mailto:g...@greglow.com> 
g...@

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Mark Hurd]

This is getting an off-topic post even more general, but this thread
also suggests to me part of why we're a hard industry to get proper
engineering-level standards applied.

We might start to apply standards, but then the technology shifts from
under us and the standards are out of date. We then need to update the
standards to work with the new technology. (And as others have said
here, we're still not sure the new technology is better, but
"everyone's" already using it. Or we continue to use the now
out-of-date technology because that's what the standards apply to, and
"everyone else" moves on.)

Not sure what the solution is, of course.

-- 
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.)

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Connors]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 at 10:13 Mark Hurd  wrote:

> This is getting an off-topic post even more general, but this thread
> also suggests to me part of why we're a hard industry to get proper
> engineering-level standards applied.
>

I had a great chat about this with one of our engineers last week as we
were discussing what we would likely be doing as careers if there was no
such thing as IT.

What we worked out through discussion was that IT is, unlike most
industries, completely unregulated. Anyone can call themselves a software
engineer and, if you're competent and have a good reputation, you can do
very well.

We never get hand outs from the government but then again we set our own
rules of engagement and our fee structures are dictated by the market.


> Not sure what the solution is, of course.
>

I used to have a bug up my arse about how unregulated IT is any how many
unqualified / incompetent people there are in the industry. I've gotten
over that and now appreciate people who make ummaintainable messes of
things as great providers of market differentiation for us. :)

David.

-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Scott Barnes]

To your point about unqualified devs Dave :-

"...Everytime I see a developer use multi-threading I think to myself,
thank you for keeping future consultancy billables alive" - Anonymous

The more chaos the web devs breed the more the seasoned devs can pick up
the win falls from that.



---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, David Connors  wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 at 10:13 Mark Hurd  wrote:
>
>> This is getting an off-topic post even more general, but this thread
>> also suggests to me part of why we're a hard industry to get proper
>> engineering-level standards applied.
>>
>
> I had a great chat about this with one of our engineers last week as we
> were discussing what we would likely be doing as careers if there was no
> such thing as IT.
>
> What we worked out through discussion was that IT is, unlike most
> industries, completely unregulated. Anyone can call themselves a software
> engineer and, if you're competent and have a good reputation, you can do
> very well.
>
> We never get hand outs from the government but then again we set our own
> rules of engagement and our fee structures are dictated by the market.
>
>
>> Not sure what the solution is, of course.
>>
>
> I used to have a bug up my arse about how unregulated IT is any how many
> unqualified / incompetent people there are in the industry. I've gotten
> over that and now appreciate people who make ummaintainable messes of
> things as great providers of market differentiation for us. :)
>
> David.
>
> --
> David Connors
> da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363
>

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Ken Schaefer]

Whilst, as consultants, we might like the mess that the 
unqualified/naïve/incompetent generate, in the sense that it creates more work 
for the rest of us, I do fear that customers don’t like that sort of 
environment.

Other professional industries have become regulated, standardised and/or 
commoditised either through practitioners banding together (to keep out 
competition or to protect reputations), or customers (whether that be firms, or 
large service providers) have forced it down the throat of the market. CIOs and 
boards don’t like uncertainty, unpredictability and endless project failure. 
They want to pay for predictable outcomes with some confidence of delivery – 
and then large MSPs will fight to develop 
standards/methodologies/frameworks/commercial models/off-the-shelf software 
that delivers that. Hence we now have everything from ITIL, through to detailed 
work instructions and hordes of cheap offshore labour that knows exactly how to 
turn a spanner to tighten a nut.

Of course, IT’s still changing too rapidly to lock this all down, hence why we 
still have jobs. But I suspect the hamster wheel will slow down at some point. 
We’ve already seen this at the lowest layers of IT – in infrastructure and 
end-user computing. I think we’ll see it in generic development next. Before it 
starts to gobble up higher-order stuff.

Cheers
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 11:56 AM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

To your point about unqualified devs Dave :-

"...Everytime I see a developer use multi-threading I think to myself, thank 
you for keeping future consultancy billables alive" - Anonymous

The more chaos the web devs breed the more the seasoned devs can pick up the 
win falls from that.


---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, David Connors 
mailto:da...@connors.com>> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 at 10:13 Mark Hurd 
mailto:markeh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is getting an off-topic post even more general, but this thread
also suggests to me part of why we're a hard industry to get proper
engineering-level standards applied.

I had a great chat about this with one of our engineers last week as we were 
discussing what we would likely be doing as careers if there was no such thing 
as IT.

What we worked out through discussion was that IT is, unlike most industries, 
completely unregulated. Anyone can call themselves a software engineer and, if 
you're competent and have a good reputation, you can do very well.

We never get hand outs from the government but then again we set our own rules 
of engagement and our fee structures are dictated by the market.

Not sure what the solution is, of course.

I used to have a bug up my arse about how unregulated IT is any how many 
unqualified / incompetent people there are in the industry. I've gotten over 
that and now appreciate people who make ummaintainable messes of things as 
great providers of market differentiation for us. :)

David.

--
David Connors
da...@connors.com<mailto:da...@connors.com> | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 
417 189 363

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

>
> I **think** Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how
> hard it was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You
> have learnt what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech
> just because Scott Hanselmann mentioned it.
>

Yeah sorry, it started as a somewhat surprised complaint over how messy it
was to get Node.js working. Node.js mentioned so much lately (even MSDN
magazine in the MEAN stack articles) that I thought it would be a nice way
getting a bit sympathetic to JS and getting some practical skills. It would
be great to be able to "script up" a REST service quickly ... after all,
that's why scripting can be so great. I know someone who used Node.JS
services to fed native mobile services they wrote in-house (but I don't
know what tools he used).

However, it all went of the rails once I reached 300+ files in 90+ folders,
using unfamiliar utilities, weird references, no IDE, no familiar project
structure, and worst all ... it didn't work and was not listening on any
port, and I had no idea how to debug it.

I therefore maintain my claim that JavaScript and its huge ecosystem is
poisonous, for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I'm shocked
that large vendors and influential technical people are not raising loud
alarm bells at the direction JS is taking our industry.

*Greg K*

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[David Connors]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 at 10:56 Scott Barnes  wrote:

> "...Everytime I see a developer use multi-threading I think to myself,
> thank you for keeping future consultancy billables alive" - Anonymous
>

Most developers who create messes don't know what a thread is.

Personally, I thank whoever invented ORMs before I go to bed at night.

Performance and Go Live Problems FOR EVERYBODY!

David

-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Tom Rutter]

IMO these "influential technical people" and vendors just see it as an
opportunity to add their name to something new and therefore keep their
jobs a bit longer.

Plus doing the same old thing is boring so anything new can be a good
change even if the old thing was "better".

On Monday, 28 November 2016, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> I **think** Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how
>> hard it was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You
>> have learnt what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech
>> just because Scott Hanselmann mentioned it.
>>
>
> Yeah sorry, it started as a somewhat surprised complaint over how messy it
> was to get Node.js working. Node.js mentioned so much lately (even MSDN
> magazine in the MEAN stack articles) that I thought it would be a nice way
> getting a bit sympathetic to JS and getting some practical skills. It would
> be great to be able to "script up" a REST service quickly ... after all,
> that's why scripting can be so great. I know someone who used Node.JS
> services to fed native mobile services they wrote in-house (but I don't
> know what tools he used).
>
> However, it all went of the rails once I reached 300+ files in 90+
> folders, using unfamiliar utilities, weird references, no IDE, no familiar
> project structure, and worst all ... it didn't work and was not listening
> on any port, and I had no idea how to debug it.
>
> I therefore maintain my claim that JavaScript and its huge ecosystem is
> poisonous, for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I'm shocked
> that large vendors and influential technical people are not raising loud
> alarm bells at the direction JS is taking our industry.
>
> *Greg K*
>

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[罗格雷格博士]

Oh yes

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low
1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com>

_
From: David Connors mailto:da...@connors.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>


On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 at 10:56 Scott Barnes 
mailto:scott.bar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
"...Everytime I see a developer use multi-threading I think to myself, thank 
you for keeping future consultancy billables alive" - Anonymous

Most developers who create messes don't know what a thread is.

Personally, I thank whoever invented ORMs before I go to bed at night.

Performance and Go Live Problems FOR EVERYBODY!

David

--
David Connors
da...@connors.com<mailto:da...@connors.com> | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 
417 189 363

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Paul Glavich]

It depends :)

 

However in an attempt to answer, which usually requires a lot more context and 
thought, here we go:

 

* I’d choose ES6/Typescript at a minimum. ES6 imports/modules/classes 
are pretty handy and good to separate out your logic. Typescript is also good 
for structure/”pretend static-ness” and helps with catching errors but is not 
to everyones flavour.

* I would then consider the following:

o   AngularJS 1.5

*  I’d consider this because it is well known (not bleeding edge) and can be 
easily packaged with no dependencies, thus reducing risk.

o   After consultation with whatever team is working on and assessment of their 
JS skillset, I would also consider:

*  Angular2/Aurelia/Polymer (I personally like Aurelia but that is purely 
personal)

* This would be dependent on the teams skill level and application 
requirements. A proficient javascript team can overcome any JS limitation or 
issue, irrespective of framework

* In addition, I’d look at using something like YARN (vs NPM) as a 
package manager to reduce issues with package inconsistency.

*  Note: I didn’t mention react simply because I don’t like it. No technical 
reason – it just is fugly :). In addition, it went from v0.14.8 to v15.0.0 in 
one release. Not sure what versioning world it came from, but that is not 
sequential, semantic or anything in between.

* As a caveat to this, in a current engagement I recommended the team 
use Angular 1.5 because

o   The team was familiar with it.

o   Team had no idea about grunt/gulp/ES6/Angular2 etc.

o   Had tight timeframes with no leeway to ramp up time.

o   I am only on the engagement 2 days a week and cannot effectively on ramp it 
in addition to working on CI/CD, architecture, team process etc.

o   So far, this is working very well and has been a good decision.

 

Hope that clarifies my thinking somewhat.

 

-  Glav 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Adrian Halid
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 10:17 AM
To: 'ozDotNet' 
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

If you were to start a new Enterprise Web Project which has the potential to be 
continually developed and enhanced over 5 to 10 years what web technology 
frameworks would you choose?

 

Regards

 

Adrian Halid 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Paul Glavich
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 6:18 AM
To: 'ozDotNet' mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

Yeah pretty much :)

 

I am a web guy through and through and I don’t mean to hack on people 
specifically, but as an industry it still manifests as real immaturity. I also 
don’t mean to suggest we don’t use and play with the new stuff either but the 
level of acceptance, particularly from people way smarter than me, is puzzling. 
It is real easy to be critical (like I have here…. ) so providing feedback on 
progress is pretty important. Doesn’t always work as momentum can carry it 
through (I am looking at you Angular2).

 

My rather rambling and opinionated point is that on a few engagements, I have 
recommended to not use the shiny new stuff, in favour of older but well known, 
and easier to maintain frameworks (after assessment of timeframes, people’s 
skillsets etc). Not using the latest in those cases has proven to be a boon, 
rather than an impediment. Sure it is lower on the coolness scale, and could be 
replaced with newer stuff later (obviously with a little rework) but it is 
working very well. It kind of suggests we perhaps invented part of the problem 
to solve in the first place. So I think play and assess the new stuff (like 
Greg has), but don’t blindly accept. Then engage and provide some form of 
influence or feedback so we don’t re-introduce the same mess in another 10 
years.

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2016 9:40 PM
To: ozDotNet mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

So Paul, you're basically saying "The standard we walk past, is the standard we 
accept" hehe :)




---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

 

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Paul Glavich mailto:subscripti...@theglavs.com> > wrote:

Ahh the recurring thread about how immature the JS/Web dev community is and how 
hard it is to do anything “right”.

 

All I will say is we asked for it. If we didn’t ask for it, we accepted it. If 
we didn’t accept it, we assumed that the new was good and ran with it.

 

We make a whole lot of assumptions on server side tech and place a whole deal 
of constraints and measures on it.

 

Not so on client dev. Massive external dependencies are a

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

ES6
Typescript
AngularJS 1.5
Angular2
Aurelia
Polymer
YARN
NPM
react
grunt
gulp

This list extracted from Glav's message should be a hint that JS is on the
fritz, and it's the tip of the iceberg -- *Greg K*

On 30 November 2016 at 09:13, Paul Glavich 
wrote:

> It depends J
>
>
>
> However in an attempt to answer, which usually requires a lot more context
> and thought, here we go:
>
>
>
> · I’d choose ES6/Typescript at a minimum. ES6
> imports/modules/classes are pretty handy and good to separate out your
> logic. Typescript is also good for structure/”pretend static-ness” and
> helps with catching errors but is not to everyones flavour.
>
> · I would then consider the following:
>
> o   AngularJS 1.5
>
> §  I’d consider this because it is well known (not bleeding edge) and can
> be easily packaged with no dependencies, thus reducing risk.
>
> o   After consultation with whatever team is working on and assessment of
> their JS skillset, I would also consider:
>
> §  Angular2/Aurelia/Polymer (I personally like Aurelia but that is purely
> personal)
>
> · This would be dependent on the teams skill level and
> application requirements. A proficient javascript team can overcome any JS
> limitation or issue, irrespective of framework
>
> · In addition, I’d look at using something like YARN (vs NPM) as
> a package manager to reduce issues with package inconsistency.
>
> §  Note: I didn’t mention react simply because I don’t like it. No
> technical reason – it just is fugly J. In addition, it went from v0.14.8
> to v15.0.0 in one release. Not sure what versioning world it came from, but
> that is not sequential, semantic or anything in between.
>
> · As a caveat to this, in a current engagement I recommended the
> team use Angular 1.5 because
>
> o   The team was familiar with it.
>
> o   Team had no idea about grunt/gulp/ES6/Angular2 etc.
>
> o   Had tight timeframes with no leeway to ramp up time.
>
> o   I am only on the engagement 2 days a week and cannot effectively on
> ramp it in addition to working on CI/CD, architecture, team process etc.
>
> o   So far, this is working very well and has been a good decision.
>
>
>
> Hope that clarifies my thinking somewhat.
>
>
>
> -  Glav
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Adrian Halid
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 November 2016 10:17 AM
> *To:* 'ozDotNet' 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> If you were to start a new Enterprise Web Project which has the potential
> to be continually developed and enhanced over 5 to 10 years what web
> technology frameworks would you choose?
>
>
>
> *Regards*
>
>
>
> *Adrian Halid*
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *Paul Glavich
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 November 2016 6:18 AM
> *To:* 'ozDotNet' 
> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Yeah pretty much J
>
>
>
> I am a web guy through and through and I don’t mean to hack on people
> specifically, but as an industry it still manifests as real immaturity. I
> also don’t mean to suggest we don’t use and play with the new stuff either
> but the level of acceptance, particularly from people way smarter than me,
> is puzzling. It is real easy to be critical (like I have here…. ) so
> providing feedback on progress is pretty important. Doesn’t always work as
> momentum can carry it through (I am looking at you Angular2).
>
>
>
> My rather rambling and opinionated point is that on a few engagements, I
> have recommended to not use the shiny new stuff, in favour of older but
> well known, and easier to maintain frameworks (after assessment of
> timeframes, people’s skillsets etc). Not using the latest in those cases
> has proven to be a boon, rather than an impediment. Sure it is lower on the
> coolness scale, and could be replaced with newer stuff later (obviously
> with a little rework) but it is working very well. It kind of suggests we
> perhaps invented part of the problem to solve in the first place. So I
> think play and assess the new stuff (like Greg has), but don’t blindly
> accept. Then engage and provide some form of influence or feedback so we
> don’t re-introduce the same mess in another 10 years.
>
>
>
> -  Glav
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com ] *On Behalf Of *Scott Barnes
> *Sent:* Sunday, 27 November 2016 9:40 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> So Paul, you'

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[DotNet Dude]

Just choose something and go with it based on your team's experience and
preference. In a few years either the app will be dead anyway or the
employer will have to pay decent money to have "old" devs come and maintain
these "legacy" apps. :p

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016, Greg Keogh  wrote:

> ES6
> Typescript
> AngularJS 1.5
> Angular2
> Aurelia
> Polymer
> YARN
> NPM
> react
> grunt
> gulp
>
> This list extracted from Glav's message should be a hint that JS is on the
> fritz, and it's the tip of the iceberg -- *Greg K*
>
> On 30 November 2016 at 09:13, Paul Glavich  > wrote:
>
>> It depends J
>>
>>
>>
>> However in an attempt to answer, which usually requires a lot more
>> context and thought, here we go:
>>
>>
>>
>> · I’d choose ES6/Typescript at a minimum. ES6
>> imports/modules/classes are pretty handy and good to separate out your
>> logic. Typescript is also good for structure/”pretend static-ness” and
>> helps with catching errors but is not to everyones flavour.
>>
>> · I would then consider the following:
>>
>> o   AngularJS 1.5
>>
>> §  I’d consider this because it is well known (not bleeding edge) and
>> can be easily packaged with no dependencies, thus reducing risk.
>>
>> o   After consultation with whatever team is working on and assessment
>> of their JS skillset, I would also consider:
>>
>> §  Angular2/Aurelia/Polymer (I personally like Aurelia but that is
>> purely personal)
>>
>> · This would be dependent on the teams skill level and
>> application requirements. A proficient javascript team can overcome any JS
>> limitation or issue, irrespective of framework
>>
>> · In addition, I’d look at using something like YARN (vs NPM) as
>> a package manager to reduce issues with package inconsistency.
>>
>> §  Note: I didn’t mention react simply because I don’t like it. No
>> technical reason – it just is fugly J. In addition, it went from v0.14.8
>> to v15.0.0 in one release. Not sure what versioning world it came from, but
>> that is not sequential, semantic or anything in between.
>>
>> · As a caveat to this, in a current engagement I recommended the
>> team use Angular 1.5 because
>>
>> o   The team was familiar with it.
>>
>> o   Team had no idea about grunt/gulp/ES6/Angular2 etc.
>>
>> o   Had tight timeframes with no leeway to ramp up time.
>>
>> o   I am only on the engagement 2 days a week and cannot effectively on
>> ramp it in addition to working on CI/CD, architecture, team process etc.
>>
>> o   So far, this is working very well and has been a good decision.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope that clarifies my thinking somewhat.
>>
>>
>>
>> -  Glav
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>>  [mailto:
>> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>> ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Adrian Halid
>> *Sent:* Monday, 28 November 2016 10:17 AM
>> *To:* 'ozDotNet' > >
>> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> If you were to start a new Enterprise Web Project which has the potential
>> to be continually developed and enhanced over 5 to 10 years what web
>> technology frameworks would you choose?
>>
>>
>>
>> *Regards*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Adrian Halid*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>>  [
>> mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
>> ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Paul Glavich
>> *Sent:* Monday, 28 November 2016 6:18 AM
>> *To:* 'ozDotNet' > >
>> *Subject:* RE: [OT] node.js and express
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah pretty much J
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a web guy through and through and I don’t mean to hack on people
>> specifically, but as an industry it still manifests as real immaturity. I
>> also don’t mean to suggest we don’t use and play with the new stuff either
>> but the level of acceptance, particularly from people way smarter than me,
>> is puzzling. It is real easy to be critical (like I have here…. ) so
>> providing feedback on progress is pretty important. Doesn’t always work as
>> momentum can carry it through (I am looking at you Angular2).
>>
>>
>>
>> My rather rambling and opinionated point is that on a few engagements, I
>> have recommended to not use the shiny new stuff, in favour of older but
>> well known, and easier to maintain frameworks (after assess

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[mike smith]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Paul Glavich 
wrote:

> Ahh the recurring thread about how immature the JS/Web dev community is
> and how hard it is to do anything “right”.
>
>
>
> All I will say is we asked for it. If we didn’t ask for it, we accepted
> it. If we didn’t accept it, we assumed that the new was good and ran with
> it.
>
>
>
> We make a whole lot of assumptions on server side tech and place a whole
> deal of constraints and measures on it.
>
>
>
> Not so on client dev. Massive external dependencies are abhorrent on
> server side. On client side, they are celebrated (to cite an example).
>
>
>
> We built it and promoted it. It is on us, not the vendors.
>
>
>
> I **think** Greg Keogh started with this with some investigations on how
> hard it was to implement something using framework/technique X. Cool. You
> have learnt what not to do, not how to do something with the latest tech
> just because Scott Hanselmann mentioned it.
>
>
>
> Caveat: I am an old bastard. This argument is not new, but it is
> compounded by an increase in velocity in general.
>
>
Is this a
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do
Nothing"

 argument?



>
>
> -  Glav
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2016 4:13 PM
>
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> @Greg, the last version of LightSwitch you could choose either HTML5 or
> SilverLight on the client. But you're right... it's no longer an option.
>
>
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 11:25, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
> Yep, Lightswitch is dead. It was Silverlight based.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775 <1300%20775%20775>) office | +61 419201410
> mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@
> ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Schultz
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2016 2:20 PM
>
>
> *To:* ozDotNet 
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> Arguably, a productive web-based RAD tool is exactly the sort of niche
> that Microsoft LightSwitch was trying to fill (although I'm pretty certain
> it's now dead). As I said earlier, we use OutSystems here, and I believe
> it's an area that Aurelia.IO and other vendors are growing into as well.
>
>
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 11:00, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士)  wrote:
>
> But that's exactly the point Scott. Why have we gone so far backwards in
> productivity?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> Dr Greg Low
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775 <1300%20775%20775>) office | +61 419201410
> mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  on
> behalf of Scott Barnes 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 12:09:38 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OT] node.js and express
>
>
>
> "It Depends" on what tool you're looking at. If all you're doing is
> staring at Visual Studio and that's it and wondering why the world is so
> hard to develop for then that's not a realistic outcome, as despite all the
> OSS rhetoric, Microsoft is still preoccupied with Windows first class
> citizen approach to roadmaps. They'll dip their toes in other platforms but
> until revenue models change, tool -> windows. The rest will just be
> additive biproduct / bonus rounds outside that.
>
>
>
> Products like Unity3D and Xamarin were the answer to that question but not
> as "drag-n-drop tab dot ship" as Winforms of old.. those days are well
> behind us now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Regards,
> Scott Barnes
> http://www.riagenic.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Greg Low (罗格雷格博士) 
> wrote:
>
> So it then comes back to tooling again.
>
>
>
> Why can’t I build an app with the ease of a winform app and have it
> deployed in the current environments? Surely the app framework should fix
> the underlying mess and let me code to a uniform clean model.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Low
>
>
>
> 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913
> fax
>
> SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com | http://greglow.me
>
>
>
> *F

Re: [OT] node.js and express

[Greg Keogh]

>
> "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do
> Nothing"
>
Sadly, with JS I think so.

I have some other good news through. Many weeks ago someone in here (I
forget sorry!) mentioned a lightweight ORM named Dapper. I had a need for
something like that last week, and I remembered the name ... and it works.
As a reminder to myself and others, I've made a blog entry here:

SQLite and Dapper ORM


This helped me avoid the horror of getting all the dependencies and
configuration installed again to get SQLite working with EF6 and the VS
EDMX designer. I don't get designer support without an EDMX, but it was
such a pain I don't care any more.

*Greg K*

RE: [OT] node.js and express

[Paul Glavich]

Well as I said, context.

 

What you have listed are options. Assess, then make a call.

 

However, my dependency chain is calling. Need to make it longer…. :)

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2016 9:26 AM
To: ozDotNet 
Subject: Re: [OT] node.js and express

 

ES6

Typescript
AngularJS 1.5
Angular2
Aurelia
Polymer
YARN
NPM
react
grunt
gulp

 

This list extracted from Glav's message should be a hint that JS is on the 
fritz, and it's the tip of the iceberg -- Greg K

 

On 30 November 2016 at 09:13, Paul Glavich mailto:subscripti...@theglavs.com> > wrote:

It depends :)

 

However in an attempt to answer, which usually requires a lot more context and 
thought, here we go:

 

* I’d choose ES6/Typescript at a minimum. ES6 imports/modules/classes 
are pretty handy and good to separate out your logic. Typescript is also good 
for structure/”pretend static-ness” and helps with catching errors but is not 
to everyones flavour.

* I would then consider the following:

o   AngularJS 1.5

*  I’d consider this because it is well known (not bleeding edge) and can be 
easily packaged with no dependencies, thus reducing risk.

o   After consultation with whatever team is working on and assessment of their 
JS skillset, I would also consider:

*  Angular2/Aurelia/Polymer (I personally like Aurelia but that is purely 
personal)

* This would be dependent on the teams skill level and application 
requirements. A proficient javascript team can overcome any JS limitation or 
issue, irrespective of framework

* In addition, I’d look at using something like YARN (vs NPM) as a 
package manager to reduce issues with package inconsistency.

*  Note: I didn’t mention react simply because I don’t like it. No technical 
reason – it just is fugly :). In addition, it went from v0.14.8 to v15.0.0 in 
one release. Not sure what versioning world it came from, but that is not 
sequential, semantic or anything in between.

* As a caveat to this, in a current engagement I recommended the team 
use Angular 1.5 because

o   The team was familiar with it.

o   Team had no idea about grunt/gulp/ES6/Angular2 etc.

o   Had tight timeframes with no leeway to ramp up time.

o   I am only on the engagement 2 days a week and cannot effectively on ramp it 
in addition to working on CI/CD, architecture, team process etc.

o   So far, this is working very well and has been a good decision.

 

Hope that clarifies my thinking somewhat.

 

-  Glav 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ] 
On Behalf Of Adrian Halid
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 10:17 AM
To: 'ozDotNet' mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

If you were to start a new Enterprise Web Project which has the potential to be 
continually developed and enhanced over 5 to 10 years what web technology 
frameworks would you choose?

 

Regards

 

Adrian Halid 

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Paul Glavich
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 6:18 AM
To: 'ozDotNet' mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> >
Subject: RE: [OT] node.js and express

 

Yeah pretty much :)

 

I am a web guy through and through and I don’t mean to hack on people 
specifically, but as an industry it still manifests as real immaturity. I also 
don’t mean to suggest we don’t use and play with the new stuff either but the 
level of acceptance, particularly from people way smarter than me, is puzzling. 
It is real easy to be critical (like I have here…. ) so providing feedback on 
progress is pretty important. Doesn’t always work as momentum can carry it 
through (I am looking at you Angular2).

 

My rather rambling and opinionated point is that on a few engagements, I have 
recommended to not use the shiny new stuff, in favour of older but well known, 
and easier to maintain frameworks (after assessment of timeframes, people’s 
skillsets etc). Not using the latest in those cases has proven to be a boon, 
rather than an impediment. Sure it is lower on the coolness scale, and could be 
replaced with newer stuff later (obviously with a little rework) but it is 
working very well. It kind of suggests we perhaps invented part of the problem 
to solve in the first place. So I think play and assess the new stuff (like 
Greg has), but don’t blindly accept. Then engage and provide some form of 
influence or feedback so we don’t re-introduce the same mess in another 10 
years.

 

-  Glav

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>  
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Su