Read on Twitter
I boil my pasta in a pan because I don't think it requires several liters of water to make pasta for one.
People make fun of this because it's different and not how they learned to do it.
I think about this analogy a lot when we have discussions about frameworks and tooling.
People make fun of this because it's different and not how they learned to do it.
I think about this analogy a lot when we have discussions about frameworks and tooling.
Cooking is the best analogy for coding, imho. Many classically trained cooks/chefs will tell you there is a correct way to cut an onion.
It wasn't until I understood the science behind it that I cared. And also, sometimes you "go against the grain" for things, like onion rings.
It wasn't until I understood the science behind it that I cared. And also, sometimes you "go against the grain" for things, like onion rings.
Classically trained chefs/cooks also are often trained to cook for a restaurant setting, where they have access to prep kitchens with people and industrial equipment. Often they're cooking for many.
A home chef might find that process inaccessible and overtooled.
A home chef might find that process inaccessible and overtooled.
Understanding that those chefs are sometimes feeding hundreds quickly makes it clear why they use the powerful tooling that they do. They also evolve the craft and make new techniques possible.
I think that this above observation is the one that most critiques of tooling forget.
I think that this above observation is the one that most critiques of tooling forget.
It is easy for a home chef to look at an industrial restaurant chef and say "that tooling is way too much!"
On the converse, easy for the industrial chef to say "wow, what primitive tools."
The small but meaningful addition of "for me" at the end makes the world of difference.
On the converse, easy for the industrial chef to say "wow, what primitive tools."
The small but meaningful addition of "for me" at the end makes the world of difference.
When we critique either point and illustrate the cons of a decision, we need to acknowledge the opportunity cost/loss of that decision too.
I think that is where people get Big Mad. JS, in particular, gets painted as "The Bad Guy," without recognising all the power it brings.
I think that is where people get Big Mad. JS, in particular, gets painted as "The Bad Guy," without recognising all the power it brings.
So, my take is: Context is the ruler of all decisions.
Sometimes we need all giant pot of state changing and manipulation using JS (I'm working on some data-driven projects where this is the case).
Other times, we need a pan of no JS. Both are valid and important to the web.
Sometimes we need all giant pot of state changing and manipulation using JS (I'm working on some data-driven projects where this is the case).
Other times, we need a pan of no JS. Both are valid and important to the web.
We might benefit by refocusing our attention less on "pot or pan good," but instead on,
"How do I decide when to use a pot and when to use a pan? How do I use pots and pans more accessibly and inclusively? How do I make pots and pans more accessible to more underserved chefs?"
"How do I decide when to use a pot and when to use a pan? How do I use pots and pans more accessibly and inclusively? How do I make pots and pans more accessible to more underserved chefs?"
