Same, the people who are crazy about react are often the people who never understood MVC originally, writing terrible apps in older frameworks like Backbone with jquery code shoved into the render() function and the model event system used as a global pub-sub for everything.
React's virtual DOM is a hands off implementation detail that forces understanding of MVC. People can't asks= "How do I put the thing in the place", b/c that's automated by the virtual DOM. Instead, they are forced to understand that they need to describe the end state. Which is something that even an older framework like Backbone tried to do, with the end state being you only having to care about your models with the rendering automated.
Progression of (frontend) MVC started with Backbone, with manually wiring up models and view render functions so that the model changes could drive the UI. It's a specific implementation of pub/sub with the published events being a certain set of model changes. (add/change/delete/...)
(Redux is pub/sub with a security guard logging your actions and only giving you specific vetted actions to combine. Also, functional goodness.)
Angular 1 went with a polling approach that negated much of the boilerplate in backbone but was not performant (and bad docs, new things to learn, etc..) but also showed many people a cleaner paradigm of writing UI code. The trap with angular was putting everything in the controller just like the trap with backbone was putting everything in the render function.
React uses a virtual DOM so the thing to render doesn't need developer input. It's automatically inferred from the DOM diffs so the developer can focus purely on describing the UI. This is the forcing function that forces people to put down jquery and actually learn MVC.
Once this is understood, you can get into managing more complex models that actually mutually affect each other that may necessitate something like Redux. (Also, somewhere along the way, OOP become unpopular and functional stuff became hip)
JSX btw, is just an extension of javascript to create DOM elements in a less ugly way. Angular and Vue went from the other direction and extended HTML to support javascript functions. It's "<div v-for="a in apples">{{a}}</div>" vs apples.map(() => <div>red apple</div>)" It's personal preference in many ways. (You'd actually need to know a fair bit of functional js though to write concise non-ugly JSX that doesn't bury the meaning of your UI description)
The main issue I have with react is that it seems much more like a lifestyle than a tool that gets out of the way. When people list out their reasons for liking react I'm mostly just hearing "because facebook, facebook, cool, cool, facebook" just like angular was driven by google before the angular 2 marketing fiasco.
And there IS truth in it. The background philosophy driving React is actually a philosophy of functional programming which has real merit. In the real world though, with many people knowing only how to use jquery, React may help you explain to them how to understand MVC, but you're going to have a much more difficult time shoving the functional lifestyle that comes with it down their throat. But hey, if you're in the facebook sphere of influence or want to be a part of it, go for React. (Also, if you're a new grad who doesn't have the baggage of jquery)
Paradigm shifts often take a much longer time horizon than expected and often require an "earthquake" for newcomers to upset the established ideas. React and Typescript were in background mode for quite a while. The non-backwards compatibility of angular2 drove people to React, and I think Java programmers getting into web development and Satya Nadella being cooler than Balmer gave typescript a good boost.
In the end though, I don't really want to be comparing hundreds of different hammers to build my house. I just want to build a house. And hey, hopefully I have more skills than being a builder so that when entire houses are 3D printed I can still find a way to justify my existence.
The "defaults" are men being obnoxiously aggressive and women being in the ruinous empathy quadrant. Mean become radically candid by caring more, and women by challenging directly.
The defaults however give men the advantage with women in a more harmonizing role.
This is because the typical metaphors company act by are aggressive. The most obvious one is war or sports, but even a less aggressive one like trade requires a sort of aggression in haggling.
The defaults favor an affinity for competition and aggression because we primarily live in a world of scarce resources and requires drawing a line in the sand and watching over it with spears. Our 1st world cushy lifestyles are basically subsidized by people in poorer countries being willing to work more for less. (as indirectly as possible to assuage guilt as much as possible) In a purely equal world, China and India become leaders of the world (again) and everyone gets 30K. Is that something people in the U.S. really want?
A person with high empathy might feel guilt and be compelled to enact this situation. What mostly happens though is that these decisions are delegated to more aggressive and competitive people. Assuaging personal guilt while still reaping the benefits of disparity.
If companies start ingesting more empathy, their actions naturally tend to become more harmonizing, creating fairer conditions. But this ONLY is desired if the total wealth is enough for each person. As larger companies act at a global scale, the global wealth isn't enough for this empathy to be acceptable.
Smaller companies which act in a smaller sphere DO benefit from empathy though. They have to be indirectly subsidized by excess wealth from the environment they are embedded in. Knowing your hipster barista's name is only possible if the business of selling high priced artisanal coffee is viable.
It's about the unintended side effects of trying to be a 'Natural Selector'. One example is selecting individual hens on egg output to create a breed of high-egg producers. The result was mean chickens which had gains b/c they were very aggressive. The breed needed to have their beaks clipped otherwise they would kill each other. When productive groups rather than productive individuals were selected though, they got the desired effect. (Though in another example I can imagine selecting for mean group behavior)
Another example was trying to selectively evolve animals that would self-limit reproduction. (to avoid overpopulation and resource over-consumption) The end result was selecting for cannibalism.
In organizations, the equivalent of propagating a feature are the hiring stage and the promotion stage. Whatever you hire for, or promote for, will be the trait that's optimized. Whatever the side effects may be... (e.g. Enron)
"I came, things got better, I left, things got worse. What do you think that says about me?"
Whether it's an engineer, or a manager, or C-level executive, this is very easy to achieve by borrowing from the future. Very difficult to solve I think.
This article is mostly about scheduling, but a bigger issues is actually amount of actual work. (Ignoring cases where amount of perceived work is important like in Japan)
A “reasonable” amount of work basically always comes down to what someone is willing to sacrifice. A cushy work week is basically always subsidized by other people. It’s often very indirect, like a factory in China. When this information is forcefully shoved in a person’s face, their moral compass gives them no other choice but to protest against the Foxconns of the world.
Unions formally define what is reasonable, but there is also a cultural form of unionization. In the U.S. H1B’s implicitly acknowledge this possibility. They look to join teams that have this cultural unionization. If half of the non-H1B’s go home at 5, management cannot force overtime from everyone else without it being egregious. This disappears when the team is mostly H1B’s or even if the manager him/herself went through this process. (Startups, rather than look for H1B’s, look for “culture fit”)
Cultural homogenization allows a shared definition of reasonable-ness without needing formal structures. With a non-homongenous culture, the “lazier” cultures lose out to the more “hardworking” cultures. The “lazier” cultures would like a rule that says “You must eat out at least one a week, and enjoy a movie, and NOT let your money compound for your children.” Otherwise, the culture that is more willing to work hard effectively undermines the desire to live comfortably of other cultures. In the Bay Area, western culture simply cannot compete with Chinese culture when it comes to housing bids. It’s 1 couple vs an entire family of savers.
There should obviously be a law to prevent Olympic athletes from taking a super-drug that will allow them to win a gold medal and then drop dead afterwards. But should there be one to prevent parents from overworking for their children?
IMO, when the amount of wealth in the world reaches the point where everyone can live comfortably if it were evenly divided, a casual lifestyle will naturally emerge. Prior to that though, there will always be people more willing to work hard. In order for a cushy lifestyle to be sustained, there must be an explicit border or wall (physical or otherwise) that divides people into homogenous cultures. People in each group must be willing to work around the same.
In the U.S. sweatshop and factory conditions are protested against, but in those same countries, they are prestigious jobs that can lift a family out of an agrarian lifestyle into technical or knowledge work. The willingness to fight over pennies subsidizes the casual picking of dollars. With China moving towards picking up dollars, there is no longer a large enough penniy-picking population to sustain it. (Which is why China internally subdivides into a 1st world portion and a 3rd world subsidizing population).
With globalization comes cultural mixing. A large portion of Trump voters realize this threat to their lifestyle (and many have probably already been affected and have trouble making ends meet) and think that re-establizing cultural zones will fix the issue (with a literal wall…) but it won’t. Solutions to questions about how to work and live comfortably without solving the global wealth distribution problem basically are all forms of indirect subsidization, making it zero sum. (Aside, religion can actually be used as a force to sub-divide a population into a culture that desires less, allow them to subsidize a smaller population that want to live more comfortably)
It outlines a model of "supernova" companies. Companies that initially earmark such a large market that they implode, creating the materials for many other companies. AirBnB for example is just a small chunk of craigslist. Twitter may be in the process of exploding, being unable to capture or tame the reaction.
IMO React is popular because it forces people to understand MVC. I've actually never seen a Backbone app where views render based on the model. It's too easy to just ram in jQuery in the render function. A lot of new frameworks just try to reduce Backbone's boilerplate of manual model-view event binding in different ways, dirty watching, virtual DOM, etc...
Even flux is basically organized pub/sub. Instead of shouting out what you're doing, you're logging your actions in a logbook. Also, instead of arbitrary actions, you can only combine certain pre-approved actions. It's a natural extension from using globals (too messy) to shouting out your intent while basically using globals (too noisy, still kinda messy) to what I've described above. (still kinda messy, but can be traced and unit tested easily)
Flux/Redux and whatever still doesn't help you solve problems that truly reduce complexity like how to organize scope or what abstractions to use.
There are tons of good frameworks out there, and it's rather disappointing to me that people don't realize that the basics are the same and insist on everyone jumping on the same bandwagon (that just happens to be supported by a rich large company).
React's virtual DOM is a hands off implementation detail that forces understanding of MVC. People can't asks= "How do I put the thing in the place", b/c that's automated by the virtual DOM. Instead, they are forced to understand that they need to describe the end state. Which is something that even an older framework like Backbone tried to do, with the end state being you only having to care about your models with the rendering automated.
Progression of (frontend) MVC started with Backbone, with manually wiring up models and view render functions so that the model changes could drive the UI. It's a specific implementation of pub/sub with the published events being a certain set of model changes. (add/change/delete/...)
(Redux is pub/sub with a security guard logging your actions and only giving you specific vetted actions to combine. Also, functional goodness.)
Angular 1 went with a polling approach that negated much of the boilerplate in backbone but was not performant (and bad docs, new things to learn, etc..) but also showed many people a cleaner paradigm of writing UI code. The trap with angular was putting everything in the controller just like the trap with backbone was putting everything in the render function.
React uses a virtual DOM so the thing to render doesn't need developer input. It's automatically inferred from the DOM diffs so the developer can focus purely on describing the UI. This is the forcing function that forces people to put down jquery and actually learn MVC.
Once this is understood, you can get into managing more complex models that actually mutually affect each other that may necessitate something like Redux. (Also, somewhere along the way, OOP become unpopular and functional stuff became hip)
JSX btw, is just an extension of javascript to create DOM elements in a less ugly way. Angular and Vue went from the other direction and extended HTML to support javascript functions. It's "<div v-for="a in apples">{{a}}</div>" vs apples.map(() => <div>red apple</div>)" It's personal preference in many ways. (You'd actually need to know a fair bit of functional js though to write concise non-ugly JSX that doesn't bury the meaning of your UI description)
The main issue I have with react is that it seems much more like a lifestyle than a tool that gets out of the way. When people list out their reasons for liking react I'm mostly just hearing "because facebook, facebook, cool, cool, facebook" just like angular was driven by google before the angular 2 marketing fiasco.
And there IS truth in it. The background philosophy driving React is actually a philosophy of functional programming which has real merit. In the real world though, with many people knowing only how to use jquery, React may help you explain to them how to understand MVC, but you're going to have a much more difficult time shoving the functional lifestyle that comes with it down their throat. But hey, if you're in the facebook sphere of influence or want to be a part of it, go for React. (Also, if you're a new grad who doesn't have the baggage of jquery)
Paradigm shifts often take a much longer time horizon than expected and often require an "earthquake" for newcomers to upset the established ideas. React and Typescript were in background mode for quite a while. The non-backwards compatibility of angular2 drove people to React, and I think Java programmers getting into web development and Satya Nadella being cooler than Balmer gave typescript a good boost.
In the end though, I don't really want to be comparing hundreds of different hammers to build my house. I just want to build a house. And hey, hopefully I have more skills than being a builder so that when entire houses are 3D printed I can still find a way to justify my existence.