This coupled with the fact that "web development" now means anything going from a content rich website like a blog, towards some e-shop, all the way to complex applications like ux design, video editing, etc.
It's pretty absurd to have such a broad range of web solutions, and think the same solution can cover everything.
> The train of thought is “what is everyone using? I’ll use that too”
I'm not so sure about that. We're seeing Next.js being pushed as the successor of create-react-app even in react.dev[1], which as a premise is kind of stupid. There is something wrong definitely going on.
It was interesting handling frontend interviews recently.
We do a 30-min tops exercise where you create a React project to show how to use useState and useEffect, etc. I help with whatever command they want to use and allow Google/ChatGPT.
More than half of the candidates had no idea how to use React without Next.js, and some argued it was impossible, even after I told them the opposite.
This surprises me a lot. I spin up new react apps with vite often to replicate issues with 3rd party libs we use. Like how do they not know you can just spin something up over on CodePen or CodeSandbox and there's not a hint of a server side paradigm required? (sure, vite has a little server but you don't really need to know anything about it)
You have to remember, Next is the only framework that can support some of the features in the latest version of React.
To many people, it's just basic logic: "everyone must want the latest React features, and the only way to get those is with Next, so everyone must want Next".
This is a little disingenuous because unfortunately you can't make decisions on technical merits alone. It takes a lot of resources to keep these projects thriving and up to date. You almost have to go with options where these resources have been deployed, even if they are terrible sometimes.
This is only partially true. For example, with React Native even the core team now tells you to "just use Expo", as if relegating all responsibility to a project maintained by a for-profit that thinks 2 weeks is enough time to beta test a Major release.
It's also dismissive of market forces, i.e. developers have to pay bills and therefore are easier to hire if they know the skillset that is in wide use.
I've never worked or interviewed a single senior that wanted to use Next.
This coupled with the fact that "web development" now means anything going from a content rich website like a blog, towards some e-shop, all the way to complex applications like ux design, video editing, etc.
It's pretty absurd to have such a broad range of web solutions, and think the same solution can cover everything.
Why? Microsoft's GUI framework as well as Apple's covered plenty of use cases before the rise of the web browser.
Then why did HTML became so popular if win32 or MFC were so great?
4 replies →
> The train of thought is “what is everyone using? I’ll use that too”
I'm not so sure about that. We're seeing Next.js being pushed as the successor of create-react-app even in react.dev[1], which as a premise is kind of stupid. There is something wrong definitely going on.
[1] https://react.dev/learn/creating-a-react-app
It was interesting handling frontend interviews recently.
We do a 30-min tops exercise where you create a React project to show how to use useState and useEffect, etc. I help with whatever command they want to use and allow Google/ChatGPT.
More than half of the candidates had no idea how to use React without Next.js, and some argued it was impossible, even after I told them the opposite.
This surprises me a lot. I spin up new react apps with vite often to replicate issues with 3rd party libs we use. Like how do they not know you can just spin something up over on CodePen or CodeSandbox and there's not a hint of a server side paradigm required? (sure, vite has a little server but you don't really need to know anything about it)
1 reply →
What are you really testing for? That sounds like a bad interview.
11 replies →
You have to remember, Next is the only framework that can support some of the features in the latest version of React.
To many people, it's just basic logic: "everyone must want the latest React features, and the only way to get those is with Next, so everyone must want Next".
Vite is coming along with rsc at least. https://github.com/vitejs/vite-plugin-react/tree/main/packag...
> You have to remember, Next is the only framework that can support some of the features in the latest version of React.
That is extremely fishy, isn't it?
2 replies →
If everyone made decisions for themselves instead of following everyone else we’d be so much better off, in all areas.
This is a little disingenuous because unfortunately you can't make decisions on technical merits alone. It takes a lot of resources to keep these projects thriving and up to date. You almost have to go with options where these resources have been deployed, even if they are terrible sometimes.
This is only partially true. For example, with React Native even the core team now tells you to "just use Expo", as if relegating all responsibility to a project maintained by a for-profit that thinks 2 weeks is enough time to beta test a Major release.
It's also dismissive of market forces, i.e. developers have to pay bills and therefore are easier to hire if they know the skillset that is in wide use.
I've never worked or interviewed a single senior that wanted to use Next.