> If Wikipedia were started today, it’d be React. Maybe?
No, I'm building a hard fork of wikipedia and I'm using Go to render the pages on the server side and a vanilla JS for a user friendly the rich text editor.
I don't know why not more people use WebComponents as a light weight alternative to React/Vue/Angular. It was natural choice in my case because it grew out of the desire to keep the tech stack small. For now I haven't find a reason to regret it, two way databinding is nice to have, but when the js is reloaded with every page, the global state is easier to reason about and less of a problem.
Probably because "more people" are not trained to "use WebComponents as a light weight alternative to React/Vue/Angular", let alone lead a team in that direction (and assume responsibility for a thing that has no market value on their resume... it's the situation 80% of tech workers find themselves in).
Momentum is a b#%~~ I mean, momentum is hard to ignore.
The sad reality is that trendy will always be driving behaviors for as long as recruiters attach value to buzz-words and -names.
Meanwhile, I guess a few will take the risk to do good engineering and damn the name of techs used, hopefully to rise to decision-making positions. Hopefully. Oh who am I kidding.
Both, its 2020 wikipedia should have had a WYSIWYG editor a long time ago. They keep making excuses why this can't/should't be the case, so I want to migrate over the content to a new system.
No, I'm building a hard fork of wikipedia and I'm using Go to render the pages on the server side and a vanilla JS for a user friendly the rich text editor.
I don't know why not more people use WebComponents as a light weight alternative to React/Vue/Angular. It was natural choice in my case because it grew out of the desire to keep the tech stack small. For now I haven't find a reason to regret it, two way databinding is nice to have, but when the js is reloaded with every page, the global state is easier to reason about and less of a problem.