What bothers my about the phrase "CV-driven development" is that it's attributing malintent to others without actually knowing their motivations. I like to believe that what drives most people is their passion for solving problems and building stuff. And when cool, new things pop up that can aid in that, they don't see it as a means to make more money but a means to continue doign what they love: building stuff.

I didn't overuse messaging when I first came across it because I wanted a higher salary, I did it because it was a cool way to solve problems I was running into. Was it the best way to solve those problem? Mostly not. But that doesn't mean I was wasting my company's time because I was greedy.

In my experience, people choose the wrong tech for a handful of reasons, last of which is to further their career.

Using that phrase also implies that the author's intentions are pure but others aren't. As if you have insight into what motivates them.

As long as it's not run by a guy who is so pathetic he lies about the video games he plays.

Twitter's fundamental issue is that it's entire pitch is "You can say the most outrageous things on the planet, share race-baiting videos, and be a scumbag as long as it doesn't anger Elon. Also, we're down with child pornography"

Which only energizes the most radical, fringe, terminally online, who happen to be the ones who were most disliked on regular Twitter in the first place.

See how that works?

Part of it is just not wanting those apps to invade the rest of my life. I know I can turn off notifications and things, but for some weird reason it helps me stay a bit more detached from social media when I'm forced to rely on the site.

The other part is privacy. I don't want the Facebook app on my phone. I don't want to have to worry about what permissions it wants and whether I've unchecked the right things. Using the web is easier for me in that respect.

Do you really think RFK appeared out of the ether? What do you think he's spent the last 2 decades doing?

I can't help but feel this is ragebait or a bot.

OP said:

> JavaScript on the front end at all

Nurses in my app have to complete 200+ question forms, on a tablet, in someone's home. The level of network chatter I'd need to have to pull this off would be too much. And I get a realistic offline mode.

And because I need accessible controls, something like React Aria becomes invaluable.

Nearly every app has some version of CRUD, but you're conflating the persistence model with the interaction layer. Just because an app is CRUD doesn't mean it doesn't require complex, client-side interactions.

I'm building an EMR and there is a large portion that is CRUD, but that doesn't mean I don't rely on enormous forms or don't need client-side validation.

And not only, but "you could get by" is true of a lot of things. I could get by with full-page refreshes every time a form is saved or a chart is pulled, but that doesn't mean it's the best option or that the users won't notice it.

This argument has big "I seldom build web apps but have a lot of opinions on them" energy. Like, the idea that I, myself, have seen enough of the different projects and use cases for the web that I can unequivocally state something like "95% of apps don't need a front-end framework" reeks of ego. You just flat out haven't. The field is enormous.

No the end goal is providing value to the user. Why is this so hard to accept for people in this field?

When you say "long known" it sounds like this is established science. Is there a link you can share?

Says who? You're saying this unequivocally like you have research that supports this.

I used to re-write the notes I took for studying and it was like night and day for how well I did on tests. IT also gave me a chance to tighten the information I was receiving. And it's exactly what's happening here.

I guess the author has never heard of tailwind merge.