Adopting something like HTMX is primarily a UX choice, and the language you use to serve it is almost irrelevant to UX. JavaScript is a nice backend language. It’s fast, has a massive ecosystem, and many people know it well.
Sure. I personally think SPAs/React have better DX than HTMX. IMO, the most compelling reasons to use HTMX instead (for building dynamic/interactive web applications) are to reduce the amount of JavaScript sent to the client and make pages become interactive faster. These are UX concerns: how much the user has to download (waiting) and how long before the page becomes interactive (waiting).
With HTMX, you get these benefits regardless of what language you use on the server. These benefits could be reasons the parent commenter chose HTMX, and JavaScript is a perfectly good language to serve HTMX applications for the reasons I mentioned.
> the most compelling reasons to use HTMX instead (for building dynamic/interactive web applications) are to reduce the amount of JavaScript sent to the client and make pages become interactive faster
Next.js and TanStack Start don't send any JavaScript to the client if you decide to server-render everything. The upside is that you can opt-in into client-side components, and have all the interactivity benefits of React. I understand using HTMX if you are building a backend in Go/Python/..., but if you are already using Node, I see no reason not to use TanStack Start instead.
Maintenance burden, supply chain attacks and the constant dependency upgrade treadmill. With a very minimal footprint app, you can avoid all that to a large extent.
Can you show me some examples that are hard to implement in Tailwind? I've been using Tailwind for an app with a somewhat complex UI for the past ~2 years, and it works great most of the time. Sometimes it doesn't, but then I write some CSS. Tailwind doesn't stop me from doing so.
Tailwind removes the C and the S, leaving only the S in CSS. (In long form, CSS is supposed to encourage modularity and a separation of concerns, concepts totally abandoned in the world of per-element styles.)
You're kind of missing the point. I'll probably bungle this analogy, but why is it important to a furniture startup that a master carpenter can put together Ikea?
Because you’ll be a force multiplier making the IKEA builders have nicer materials and surface finishes, instead of making really nice furniture pieces that get thrown away on every redesign. Same reason to want a .NET backend dev that plays well with others, instead of a lisp dev with a perfect reimplementation of their own web framework, but going across stacks or teams requires onboarding on the tech instead of just the domain
Because you are have an existing app in Python. Because you need some library that is not available in Go. Because you prefer Python. All are valid reasons.
Clearly lol. I think a good-faith interpretation of the question is: "What kinds of things is go's concurrency model suited for where the normal pythonic alternative is cumbersome/less desirable"
Are we pretending the US/NATO hasn't been interfering with the world's economy for the past decades? Or free trade here means the US being the sheriff of the world, forcing everyone else to use their currency, and bringing "freedom and democracy" to whoever thinks of challenging that?
There's plenty that the U.S. government does that it shouldn't do, and it's out of scope for this discussion.
When it comes to globalization, there is a legit role for hegemonic military power, and it's to keep trade lanes open. So for example, interdicting Somali pirates or Houthi rebels or keeping the Straight of Hormuz open would be legit uses of force. Sinking suspected drug boats in the Caribbean or imposing their own blockade would not be. Providing a stable currency is legit, using that currency to impose sanctions on countries or individuals that do things you do not like is not legit.
There is another conversation to be had about the use of power and how enforcing your ideals often comes into conflict with the values of your ideals themselves, but that is another conversation, not for this thread.
The US did not create a neutral global free market. It created and maintains a US-centered international order that is relatively open for trade when openness aligns with American strategic interests and becomes coercive when it does not.
> Providing a stable currency is legit
The US does not "provide" a stable currency, it outright forces everyone to use it.
> how enforcing your ideals often comes into conflict with the values of your ideals themselves
The US/NATO couldn't care less about enforcing their "ideals". This is all about economic gain. It is very odd how liberal ideals must be enforced upon Iran, but not upon Saudi Arabia, which is a US ally, no?
> but that is another conversation, not for this thread
So discussing the use of force in the global economy is not fit for a thread about free-trade?
> That being said, has Akka started making full use of JVM's new green threads? Has Java itself started introducing immutability and STM / share-nothing as first-class citizens?
Amazing how it doesn't even cross your mind that there are trade-offs to those choices. Green threads are awesome, but guess what, they come at a cost. Same for share-nothing semantics.
> Has anybody rolled up their sleeves and said "Alright, BEAM VM's reign is over, I am making the same or better runtime as them in Java / Clojure!"?
You are again presupposing the BEAM has an absolute superiority over the JVM. "Better runtime" makes no sense on its own. Better is always relative to something. Better for whom? For what?
I'd bet that you work on a traditional CRUD enterprise software, and that IO(the database) is the real bottleneck of your app. In that case, sure, the BEAM is a solid choice(so is Python, Ruby and PHP nowadays). But let's please not pretend that is all there is to software engineering.
Any good reason for your rude tone? If we are going to invoke the what crossed somebody's mind trope, I'd lead with that when talking to you -- did it cross your mind to speak calmly and not assume something "did not cross" somebody's mind?
RE: your other similarly rude comment, I have not "appealed to authority" anywhere. I said that I have used multiple PLs / runtimes and made an informed choice... for me. I don't intend to add "...for me" after each sentence. It's redundant and obviously implied when it comes to tech because obviously people have made well-working prod systems with combinations of bash and Perl ages ago. So obviously people can make nearly everything work.
If you don't intend to discuss out of position of curiosity but want to jump on people then I am not interested.
Your first comment assumed I was "speed-running to a conclusion and squinting too hard", and this was "similar to the weird childish name-calling". I think that is in the same area(or worse) than saying "Amazing how X didn't even cross your mind". And sorry, but invoking that you have experience with X, Y, Z and thus your opinion is informed after criticizing some technology IS an appeal to authority.
> If you don't intend to discuss out of position of curiosity
I'm not the one making sweeping statements on the superiority of one piece of technology. Reading your other response, I think you are the one who have little to no curiosity in understanding how you might be wrong.
The JVM is perfectly capable of Golang-style green threads now. As for Erlang, the creator of Clojure have commented in the past on why he dislikes the Actor model, and I think it is a fair criticism. Sometimes I see people praising Erlang VM as some panacea in which all the VMs should strive to be like. This is overly simplistic in my opinion, and ignores the huge trade-offs that the Erlang VM has.
You might be speed-running to a conclusion and squinting too hard if you use the word "panacea". Similar to the weird childish name-calling people do in Rust threads (somebody met one brainless zealot and now of course they'll judge a community of hundreds of thousands of devs by that one loony).
I used Java, Golang, Rust, Elixir (so Erlang).
My opinion is informed. STM / share-nothing-actors lend themselves amazingly well to online services for many reasons, better explained by other people and documented elsewhere (and I did not come here to advocate but to express preference and offer the take of somebody who has been around).
I am not denying that the JVM might have almost caught up in the meantime. More than a decade ago it did not.
And yes the BEAM VM is absolutely and markedly _not_ a panacea. It has a few weird sharp edges. It's just that in my work I have found having to avoid them still worth it compared to the alternatives (global mutability and more primitive parallelism which was the case for the JVM for decades).
I have used Clojure(JVM), Elixir(so Erlang) and a bit of Golang professionally too. So my opinion "is informed" too for that matter, but this kind of appeal to authority adds nothing to the discussion.
> I am not denying that the JVM might have almost caught up in the meantime. More than a decade ago it did not.
This presupposes that the JVM had something to catch up in the meantime. Again, this lacks nuance and brings nothing to the table. The JVM makes different trade-offs than the Erlang/Golang VM does, and has different strengths and weaknesses. Both of your comments completely ignores that.
> It's just that in my work I have found having to avoid them still worth it compared to the alternatives (global mutability and more primitive parallelism which was the case for the JVM for decades).
Clojure runs on the JVM and avoids mutability pretty well. It is amazing for writing concurrent software, and has been for many years(i.e more than a decade ago).
> Similar to the weird childish name-calling people do in Rust threads
I believe it is more complicated than simply “throwing money at industries”. It seems to me that in China, the Government actually runs the country, while in the US, private capital does.
It depends. For a lot of hardware it's actually easier to get working on linux, because the driver is just part of the kernel and you don't have to do anything special, including manually installing drivers, to get it working.
There are some cases where hardware support on Linux is suboptimal, such as Nvidia cards and many fingerprint readers, but things are a LOT better now than they used to be. Most consumer laptops and desktops will run linux just fine.
In 2022 we got new zen 5 amd cpus almost when they came out, windows did not recognize a bunch of stuff and had to find and download individual drivers. In linux (ubuntu) everything worked out of the box, except only that the LTS release did not support the kernel that supported the new mobos yet and had to install the rolling release instead.
I liked the apple II, and the TRS 80 as I rather like basic. And then I didn’t hate DOS, and then I actively hated the graphical shell of Windows 3, but could not afford a Macintosh -so suffered through it where I had to, but mainly used DOS. Then I discovered UNIX, and did almost all of my work on a timeshare - in the early 90s!
Then Windows 95 came out and I actively hated it, but did think it was amazingly pretty - somehow this was the impetus for me to get a pc again, which I put Windows NT on. Which was profitable for freelance gigs in college. Soon after that, I dual booted it to Linux and spent most of my time in Slackware.
After that, I graduated and had enough money to buy a second rig, which I installed OS/2 warp on - which was good for side gigs. And I really liked. A lot. But my day job required that I have a Windows NT box to shell into the Solaris servers as we ran. Then I got a better class of employer and the next several let me run a Linux box to connect to our solaris (or Aix) servers.
Next my girlfriend at the time got a PowerBook G4 and installed OS X on it. It was obviously amazing. Windows XP came out, and it was once again so much worse than Windows NT - and crashed so much more - which was odd as it was based on Windows NT. (yes 98 was before this but it was really bad). Anyhow, right about here the Linux box I was running at home, died. And it was obvious that I was not going to buy an XP box, so I bought my first Mac.
And it’s been the same for the last 25 years - every time I look at a Windows box it’s horrible. I pretty much always have a Linux box headless somewhere in the house, and one rented in the cloud, and a Mac for interacting with the world.
And like the parent I actively dislike windows. And that’s interesting because I’ve liked most other operating systems I’ve used in my life, including MS-DOS. Modern windows is uniquely bad.
I use windows and absolutely hate the mac UI. Having the current window title bar always at the top of the screen doesn't make any sense when you have a very big monitor. It only made sense with the tiny monitors available when the mac UI was originally created.
Yeah, that is an annoyance for me too but for a different reason. I have set the menu bar to be only in the internal display (to avoid issues with my OLED external monitor) so when I have a window in the external monitor, I have to move the mouse to the internal monitor screen space if I want to open something that is in the app's title bar.
On the other hand, it is actually useful that there is mostly a specific place you find settings etc, as in windows/linux it tends to vary depending on the app where to find those (is there a bar on top of the window? Is there a button to expand a menu somewhere? Something else? Who knows).
