Comment by bilekas

Comment by bilekas 16 hours ago

10 replies

View on Hacker News

Am I just getting more grumpy in my old age or is every new framework just complete bloat ?

I wanted to give it a try, but I need to install bun, a new js runtime, okay fine, why not. Javascript needs more runtimes after all.

Then I need to install `nuekit`.. globally.. Okay...

Now I need to run an obscure command 'nue; which I didn't know I installed. `nue create simple-blog`

Then it tells me to follow the tutorial docs, great. But I need to start writing YAML.. Losing patience now.

My relief comes when I see :

> Nue is not currently tested or developed under Windows, so use it at your own risk.

Well I guess as a Windows user I can't have a 'Standards First Web Framework'.

Think I'll stick to what actually works instead.

ezfe 13 hours ago

I had you until the last line.

Windows causes so many problems for me in a full stack development role because people come in and have trouble installing things, etc. and nothing works properly.

I'm not surprised this app doesn't support Windows, I certainly wouldn't bother putting that time in myself. You can have a cross-env but everything else should just work or it's not my problem.

Reply View 4 replies
  • WorldMaker 11 hours ago

    Node, Deno, and Bun are all great on Windows and all work the same way on Windows they do anywhere else.

    Python is tiny bit more challenging to install. .NET is lot less challenging for the most part but has a few Windows install "quirks" now due to the frozen version bundled with Windows. Both are generally great on Windows once properly installed.

    Plenty of developers do full stack development on Windows. It's often extra work to break Windows development than to support it.

    (Also yes, Ruby is terrible on Windows, Swift is getting better, try to use task runners that aren't (Ba)sh scripts.)

    Reply View 3 replies
    • andrewmcwatters 10 hours ago

      It's fundamentally extra work to support Windows when the rest of us are writing software for POSIX environments. Whatever extra work you think it takes to break Windows development is because others before already ported first POSIX-supported work to Windows.

      Node, Deno, and Bun, and all their contemporaries in other programming language ecosystems are targeting POSIX first, and then often times forcing those same APIs to behave the same way on Windows.

      That's why. Most full stack web developers are not doing things in a Windows environment.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • WorldMaker 10 hours ago

        There's no such thing as POSIX. Every platform needs support a little different. macOS isn't nearly as similar to a random distribution of Linux as a lot seem to think and vice versa, you can't just build on Linux and expect macOS support.

        There's no such thing as POSIX. There have been a million different standards named POSIX. The only one that really mattered long-term commercially was "capable of being used for US Government projects" and that one both has and has not claimed Windows was "POSIX" in different decades. "Has a file system and a command line and is capable of running programs." Exciting standards stuff like that. Everyone who uses the term "POSIX" has a different definition in mind, in my experience.

        > Most full stack web developers are not doing things in a Windows environment.

        I think that depends as much on which part of the country you live in. There's a lot of "dark matter" developers doing boring full stack things on Windows. You might not see them, you might not care about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Also the last straw poll I saw was something like a 50/50 split. I don't any side can claim "most". I do think that yes, the most visible web developer is the stereotype of the Bay Area macOS programmer with a hipster 'stache a near permanent chair in some coffee shop. I don't think that is most web developers in the general world.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • andrewmcwatters 10 hours ago

          What in the world are you talking about? This is completely incoherent.

          There's literally a POSIX specification at https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/

          Do you seriously not think the people who author Node, et al aren't looking at POSIX, the C Standard Library, Linux, macOS, Windows and moving down the list in that order?

          Where do you think all of `node:fs` comes from? Because I sure don't see GetFileAttributesEx there.

          Or who could forget good old CreateDirectoryA? I guess Bun didn't get the memo.

          Reply View 0 replies
mossTechnician 15 hours ago

I think this is completely valid. From the title ("standards-first") I'd assume it would stuck to minimal third-party addons and use standards-compliant JavaScript as much as possible. Why not JavaScript for configuration, for example?

As a side note, and not to excuse lack of Windows support, but: I've switched to WSL (Linux) for development on Windows. Coupled with Visual Studio Code, the results are much faster than when I used the Windows terminal directly.

Reply View 0 replies
smt88 13 hours ago

> Well I guess as a Windows user I can't have a 'Standards First Web Framework'.

Windows has had a Linux subsystem for years. This should not be an obstacle for you anymore.

Reply View 0 replies
andrewmcwatters 14 hours ago

My big fat stink test is if I need tooling at all.

Do I need npm or another utility? It probably stinks. Do I need to build something? It definitely stinks.

    # Create a website
    nue create simple-blog
Stinks all around.
Reply View 1 reply
[removed] 13 hours ago
[deleted]
Reply View 0 replies