> For instance http://vanilla-js.com/ has all the right jargon and could be mistaken for a serious project.

That's hilarious. I like the counter showing the size as you add features: "0 bytes uncompressed, 25 bytes gzipped"

I remember my friend mentioning this when I told him I had just started web development and wanted to learn a new framework. I even selected the features I thought I should have, hit the download button, and was surprised to see an empty folder in my downloads *facepalm"

See also: "Show human readable sizes"

I wa

Is there some Godwin's law corollary 34 that any online crititique on a venue with devs will end turning into a critique of javascript?

I've mostly seen this on HN - but I don't visit a lot of forums. Looks like PHP is out and Javascript is in; lots of people have an axe to grind with Javascript (e.g. gp - the segue is almost comical). I can imagine an article on a new dental procedure, with the first comment "Root canal is painful, just like javascript ha ha amirite"

I would be interested in finding out the proportion of HN threads that end up having 'javascript' mentioned when the original discussion was not remotely related.

... did you just compare the modern JavaScript framework landscape to Nazis? ;)

actually it is you who did it.

There really should be!

Let's make it a thing:

https://twitter.com/dorfsmay/status/779682343611011072

PS: Today I learned that Godwin introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics!

They often appear on French TV shows to promote their popular science books. It's pretty sad because their book suck. I feel sorry for the persons that buy them.

Still, I find the Bogdanoff fascinating. I don't think they are imposters. They just have their very own confused way of understanding science. And I have to admit they're quite entertaining and likable. I used to watch them on TV when I was a kid more than 30 years ago. They hosted some kind of sci-fi show.

Old times, with space saucers. Watched too.

I've been using VJS for years and can testify to its performance and ease of use. It literally took no effort to install and use.

> There's a certain beauty in an entire field losing coherency.

To be fair, Woit is hardly a neutral commenter on physical matters related to string theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit#Criticism_of_string... . Of course, that doesn't make him wrong.

For discussion of this whole issue, I feel more comfortable trusting Baez than Wiki. He seems to reach much the same conclusions: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html . (There's enough similarity in language that I don't know that he wasn't involved in writing the Wiki article, though a casual look at the history (and the fact that I don't know his Wikipedia username …) doesn't show it.)

> For instance http://vanilla-js.com/ [...]

<rant> I wish employers would take this serious during interviews, every time I say that I know vanilla JavaScript they cringe as if knowing the core features of a language instead of a popular framework was a bad thing. I understand that SPA grew to become a standard among JavaScript developers but it really doesn't provides much innovation so to me learning a framework is like incentivizing the proliferation of these type of projects. JavaScript developers are obsessed with JSON and want to JSONify everything, the only thing that I like about modern frameworks is MVVM but most of the other things are just over-complicated solutions.

The rant will never end. I join you in solidarity.

A perhaps better example: Nobody was able to verify Mochizuki's proof of the abc conjecture, because the first step was to spend a decade inventing an entirely new branch of mathematics.

There are a lot of semi-coherent proofs for famous conjectures that appear from time to time on the arxiv, with absolutely unknown quality. P ?= NP is a popular topic.

vanillajs makes more sense than at least half of JS libraries