198 JSJ 2015 Recap and 2016 Predictions

00:00 0:59:47
Download MP3

02:36 - Big Changes in the JavaScript Community in 2015

09:38 - Other Uses of JavaScript

10:56 - Functional Programming

19:16 - Elm / redux

22:40 - RxJS and Reactive Programming

25:00 - ES2015

27:43 - Types: TypeScript / Flow

30:59 - npm

33:00 - Junior Developers and Bootcamps

47:27 - Will other communities start looking at Node?

49:18 - Building Mobile Apps with JavaScript

50:09 - Text Editors or IDEs?

Victor Savkin: Managing State in Angular 2 Applications (Joe)Desserts of Kharak (Joe)The Prodigals Club (Joe)AST explorer (Aimee)Chyld Medford (Aimee)Mazie's Girl Scout Cookie Digital Order Site (Aimee)Mogo Portable Seat (Chuck)Patt Flynn: How to Write a Book: The Secret to a Super Fast First Draft (Chuck)React Remote Conf (Chuck)

Transcript

CHUCK:  I thought you were like a pro at moving on the ice. AIMEE:  [Chuckles] JOE:  Yeah. AIMEE:  If I had blades, maybe. But rubber doesn't go so well on ice. CHUCK:  You hear her violent tendency? She wishes she had blades. JOE:  I know. AIMEE:  [Laughs][This episode is sponsored by Frontend Masters. They have a terrific lineup of live courses you can attend either online or in person. They also have a terrific backlog of courses you can watch including JavaScript the Good Parts, Build Web Applications with Node.js, AngularJS In-Depth, and Advanced JavaScript. You can go check them out at FrontEndMasters.com.]**[This episode is sponsored by Hired.com. Every week on Hired, they run an auction where over a thousand tech companies in San Francisco, New York, and L.A. bid on JavaScript developers, providing them with salary and equity upfront. The average JavaScript developer gets an average of 5 to 15 introductory offers and an average salary offer of $130,000 a year. Users can either accept an offer and go right into interviewing with the company or deny them without any continuing obligations. It’s totally free for users. And when you’re hired, they also give you a $2,000 bonus as a thank you for using them. But if you use the JavaScript Jabber link, you’ll get a $4,000 bonus instead. Finally, if you’re not looking for a job and know someone who is, you can refer them to Hired and get a $1,337 bonus if they accept a job. Go sign up at Hired.com/JavaScriptJabber.]****[This episode is sponsored by DigitalOcean. DigitalOcean is the provider I use to host all of my creations. All the shows are hosted there along with any other projects I come up with. Their user interface is simple and easy to use. Their support is excellent and their VPS’s are backed on Solid State Drives and are fast and responsive. Check them out at DigitalOcean.com. If you use the code JavaScriptJabber you’ll get a $10 credit.]**CHUCK:  Hey everybody and welcome to episode 198 of the JavaScript Jabber Show. This week on our panel we have Aimee Knight. AIMEE:  Hello. CHUCK:  Joe Eames. JOE:  Hey everybody. CHUCK:  I'm Charles Max Wood from DevChat.tv. I just want to get us started today talking about our topic. And this time we're going to be talking about, this is something we did on Adventures in Angular. I'm rambling, sorry. And it was an idea that John Papa had and I really liked it. Thought we ought to do it on this show, too. So, it is talking about the chain of events that happened last year within the JavaScript community. Things that we saw that were interesting. Things that are indicators of good things or bad things. And then talk about what we think is going to happen this year in 2016. So, I'm curious. I think we all kind of move in different circles. So, I'm curious as to what you all have seen as big changes or big moves in the JavaScript community this last year. JOE:  Well, I think obviously the big one is Star Wars. CHUCK:  That's right. AIMEE: [Chuckles]**CHUCK: **Star Wars JS. Is that a library? [Chuckles]JOE:  Oh my gosh. I think it has to be. CHUCK:  There's a Code.org Star Wars something or other here. JOE:  Yup. Code.org Star Wars. And then the Star Wars API. That should be my pick for today, is the Star Wars API. AIMEE: [Chuckles]**CHUCK:  Yes. It makes everything better. JOE: **The [REST] API. Yup. It's a RESTful API with all the Star Wars data in it. It's pretty awesome.**CHUCK:  That's awesome. JOE:  Yup. CHUCK:  So anyway, other big things. JOE:  Aimee, what are other big things? AIMEE: **I mean, this is kind of obvious but I guess I would say that 2015 was the year of React. [Chuckles]**CHUCK:  Yes. JOE: **Yeah. I would say that's definitely accurate. 2015 is definitely the year of React. [Inaudible]AIMEE:  You know what, too? And I should say for people who do full-stack JavaScript too, I would say it was a really good year for Node. Seeing the merge was really, really good because that's not something you see a lot of times. CHUCK:  The merge between Node and IO? AIMEE:  Correct. JOE:  When was the split? Wasn't it in 2015 as well? AIMEE:  It was right around Thanksgiving of 2014. JOE:  Oh. CHUCK:  Ah. AIMEE:  Is when they forked. JOE:  That's funny. AIMEE:  So… CHUCK:  But we all love each other in the JavaScript community, so it's all better now. JOE:  Yes. AIMEE: [Chuckles]JOE:  Nobody ever has anything bad to say about anybody else in the JavaScript community. CHUCK:  Yeah. AIMEE: [Laughs] Oh, gosh.**JOE: **So, I think that in addition to 2015 being the year of React it was also the year of tool fatigue, which is absolutely related. Not that React brings tool fatigue but React is sort of, “We're going to do things bigger,” and now tool fatigue is becoming… it certainly was not brought on by React. It existed long before. But it has become [inaudible] to the forefront. And I think 2015 is the beginning of tool fatigue. And maybe 2016 will be, I don't know, the beginning of the solutions to tool fatigue.**AIMEE:  I have a question about that. Because I was actually talking with a developer yesterday. And because I'm newer to this and I don't have much history to go by, they mentioned that they felt like a lot of what we're going through has definitely been experienced by other communities in the past. So, I'm curious if you guys have any insight into that. And if you do have insight, does that kind of influence what you think is going to happen? JOE:  Interesting. So, this is something that other communities have experienced is what they're saying? AIMEE:  Yeah. CHUCK:  Probably. I want to say that you probably saw some of this in some of the communities like Java and C++ when they were getting a big… I remember when Ruby was really hot and we really didn't go through this. So… AIMEE:  Yeah. I know Java was one of them that they were specifically mentioning. CHUCK:  I think it basically boils down to the number of use cases, the number of different use cases, which tends to bring out the number of tools. And then the other thing is the size of the community in general. And so, that's where you would run into some of these things. With Java for example when it got really, really big, a lot of movement all at once and then everybody going, “Okay, now which of these do we actually want to settle on?” JOE:  Well, it's also more indicative of not just open source but at least more open source minded. Like I was a .NET developer for 10-ish years. And I don't think that there was ever a big point where tool fatigue existed the same way that it exists today. But it was also a much more uniform segment, right? There weren’t 55 different solutions for things. In fact, when I got into open source and you tried to do something, there's 55 options, that was huge turning point for me, eye-opener. CHUCK:  One other thing that I want to just put out there with it is that we have many, many more new people coming in to JavaScript than I think we have had in other communities. And so, we are seeing a lot of people come in and just not even know where to start. Like Ruby people would come in and there was kind of the track that you would follow to get in. I'm assuming that with .NET it was similar. You would grow up writing VB or whatever and then C# and the different frameworks. And you would just move along with whatever the current state of the art is. And in JavaScript that's all over the place, too. JOE:  Yeah. AIMEE: **Oh, yeah. [Laughs]JOE:  That's true. AIMEE: [Inaudible] talking to friends of mine and stuff, that is a huge, huge pain point. But yeah, I know we're super appreciative for many of the things but it prevents you from probably tackling maybe a little bit more challenging things because you have to figure all that stuff out first. Whereas I don't know, with Rails or something you can get a feel for the codebase just because of the convention of it. So, you can probably start tackling actual features and stuff a little bit more easily.**CHUCK:  Yeah, and then if you wanted to move along past Rails later on, then you could get into some of the other frameworks and tools. AIMEE:  Yup. JOE: **Yeah. I definitely agree with that. There's a ton of people moving into JavaScript. I think another thing that's different in addition to the number of people that are moving into JavaScript is just the fact that there are lots of full-stack developers that are just doing more and more and more JavaScript. And speaking of the year of React, I think this is kind of relevant but I was just talking to somebody. And their company, they decided to rewrite their frontend in React. Now, they had a [very] small frontend. It was like, four pages. So, it wasn't like a Herculean effort by any means. But nobody on the team had production experience with React. And they decided that they're going to rewrite it in React and Redux. And they're definitely experiencing some pain about that. And I'm sure that's a lot different. I mean, they're a .NET shop on the backend. So, it's an entirely different way to do things.CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  So, I think that a lot of these full-stack developers getting into frontend are also a big cause. Not necessarily a cause but maybe pointing out, they're more likely to point out, “Why is this so difficult?” Although one of the big people that pointed it out was Christopher Chedeau, I believe that's how you pronounce his last name, from the React Native team. CHUCK:  Yup. JOE:  So, he was one of the big first ones that… not necessarily first ones but one of the big guys that really agreed with the whole, “This is really difficult to get a project up and running.” CHUCK:  Yeah, I think another aspect to that though is that there are a lot of amateurs. Some like you said full-stack developers but not just full-stack JavaScript but full-stack in general. So yeah, the JavaScript isn't their core competency. And so, they just want to be able to plug, plug, plug and then then make it all work instead of being worried about all of the different tools and everything else. And so, yeah I can see the tool fatigue coming in there as well. JOE:  Yup. CHUCK:  I do want to talk a little but about some of the other uses of JavaScript. We had React Native and NativeScript both come out last year as well as Electron, kind of. I don't know if it came out but it definitely gained ground last year. JOE:  Right. CHUCK:  And so, there were these unconventional ways of using JavaScript. We had Cordova before, but actually having JavaScript Bridge access native apps written in JavaScript on mobile devices I think is really cool. And I think that's going to continue to grow. Because for the people that are into Swift and into Objective-C it's one thing to just keep doing what they're doing. But it's such a lower barrier to entry at least for me to be able to pick up a language that I already know, that being JavaScript, and actually write native apps. So, I don't have some of the concerns I have with the Web Views and make that all work. JOE:  Right. I definitely agree with that. CHUCK:  We're also seeing it in Internet of Things. We talked to Peter Hoddie a couple of weeks ago. JOE:  Yeah, one of the things that I actually have seen recently or heard about that I think is super interesting is somebody saying that they were using Elm and Electron to write desktop apps in Elm. CHUCK:  Oh, cool. JOE:  Yeah. I was like, “Wow, that is really cool, writing desktop apps in Elm.” AIMEE:  So, this might be changing topics slightly. But one thing that I'm curious about probably to get your feedback on is I feel like there's just this big shift into functional programming. And I'm curious, your thoughts if that could potentially swing a little too far in one direction. JOE: There's no such thing as going too far. AIMEE: [Laughs]CHUCK:  My experience with a lot of these technologies where they supplant a way of doing things without actually eliminating that way of doing things, so for example with JavaScript you can still do prototypal inheritance in ES 6 or ES 2015. You can do classical inheritance which is really just lipstick on prototypal inheritance. You can do functional programming. You can do… so you can basically do object-oriented programming. You can do procedural programming. And as they become more popular yes, my experience is that people take it way to the extreme. And then what happens is eventually they start hitting the pain points on that other end. And so then, they start dialing it back to where it makes sense. And then you get a really well-reasoned explanation for, “You should do functional programming here and you should do whatever other type of programming you're used to doing over here.” AIMEE:  That's really, really valuable. I know for me again being new, I listen to a lot of different people. And I hear a lot of strong opinions. And then I think, “Oh, I need to do it this way,” and then I hear an opinion that says, “Oh, you need to do it this way.” So, I think as I've been around a little bit longer I'm starting to realize that it's always, “It depends,” and to take things with a little bit of grain of salt and ultimately have to come up with my own thoughts. JOE:  Well, that's an interesting point because back in the 60s all we had was procedural oriented programming. CHUCK:  Mmhmm JOE:  And you know, C was the big dominant thing or was becoming the big dominant thing. I don't necessarily know my 60s history that well. CHUCK:  I was going to say, “Joe's the only one of us that remembers that far back.” JOE: [Laughs] Says the guy… wait, you're about my same age. [Jerk]. [Laughter]CHUCK:  No, I'm pretty sure you're older than I am. AIMEE:  But there's really no way you guys remember that far back. I don't believe that. CHUCK:  No. I was born in the late 70s. I'm guessing Joe was born in the early 70s or late 70s. AIMEE:  There we go. JOE:  '75. CHUCK:  Okay. You're not that much older than I am. JOE:  But Aimee is much closer in age to my daughter than she is to me. CHUCK: [Laughs]**AIMEE:  I might be somewhere in the middle. I don't know.  We'll see. I'm not giving away my date. JOE:  Uhuh. Anyway, so that was what we had back then, right? CHUCK:  Right. JOE: **And C was a dominant language, Fortran and some other stuff. And we also had these funny paradigms which were that it was the algorithms that mattered and the data didn't. And then object-oriented kind of came out. And this whole thing exploded, object-oriented analysis and design. And actually the databases were a big part of that, relational databases where the data became a very core piece of what you were doing. And the code started not necessarily taking a backseat but now had to share the spotlight with the database and how you organize your data and accessed it. And now we're seeing another paradigm that's getting popular in this particular world, right? But it has been popular in other worlds before this. Certainly people that have been doing functional programming for a long time have been saying, “Oh, you guys don't know what you're missing.” So, as much as it might be, “Oh, well it's one more thing,” we don't do much the way of procedural oriented programming anymore. Very seldom do we do that. You know, if you're writing [inaudible] or things like that you might. But the ways that we wrote C in the 60s and 70s are not really being done very much by very many people anymore. So it might be, “Here's another really great way. Do this in the right circumstances. Don't do this,” similar to say where testing and test-driven development has gotten to. But it also could potentially become a, “Wow, this is much better.” And we might see the sun setting of object-oriented programming.CHUCK:  I don't think that's going to happen for quite a while. AIMEE: [Chuckles]CHUCK:  But you know, if the trade-offs become very clear that they're that way, then I can definitely… it will move that way. But… JOE:  Yeah, so… CHUCK:  I think it's going to be a slow roll because was C was really… C and Fortran and COBOL and a lot of these other languages that really were of that paradigm, they were around for 20 or 30 years before something really replaced them. JOE:  Yeah. CHUCK:  And that was object-oriented programming. So, it could conceivably happen. JOE:  And became dominant. CHUCK:  Right. And so, it could happen. Functional programming's been around since the 60s or 70s anyway. JOE:  Right. CHUCK:  And it just solves some of the issues that we have with the way that we've written code up 'til now. And so, I don't think that it's going to wipe object-oriented off the map. I think that certain applications are going to adopt it just because it makes a lot of things easier for those concerns. Will it become as big as object-oriented programming? I really don't know. Will it eventually become the dominant paradigm? I really don't know. It very well could. But yeah, I would have to say that I'm not as enthusiastically in agreement with you as I would like to be, I guess. JOE:  So, it's funny because a lot of people who have done Redux for a while now, React and Flux, they are saying, “Wow, this is really great. I love this. I wouldn't go back to writing code any other way.” And we hear that sort of viewpoint a lot. What we don't hear is a counter viewpoint. But as an example, again this company that I was talking about that switched to React, the developer that I was talking to who doesn't do a ton of React and Redux but he does have to get in there and do it sometimes, he's definitely… again, he's a full-stack developer who goes down onto the client-side now and then. His opinion definitely was, “Wow, I really don't like the way that this hat works. I don't like having to jump through all these hoops in order to make Redux work.” So, there are definitely some counterpoints, viewpoints that other people are having that we aren't necessarily hearing a lot about. CHUCK:  Mmhmm. JOE:  And I think it also might have to do a lot with that dark matter, those dark matter developers that we've mentioned previously, people that are going in and doing their job and they're care is, how effectively can I get my job done? CHUCK:  Yeah. The other thing is that in my opinion a framework or a paradigm has to be around for at least a few years before people can really speak intelligently about what's wrong with it and what's right with it. JOE: [Inaudible]**CHUCK:  I mean, some people are going to run into issues right away. But for the most part the real deep problems, the ones that come from the paradigm and not from the implementation, it just takes time. And so, I don't think we're really going to understand where React really is awesome and really isn't for another year. I think by the end of this year we'll really be starting to get a great idea of, “Okay the React style stuff, it's terrific for this, this, this, and this. But maybe for these other applications you might want to go look at an Angular or Ember that have a different approach that solve different problems.” JOE:  Yeah, so the question is: will 2015 be known as the year of React or will it be known as the year of functional programming? CHUCK:  Mm, good one. I don't know. JOE:  You know, React has definitely jumped into the limelight, into the spotlight. But what it brought with it I think is mainstream functional programming. AIMEE: **Yeah. Well, and I will say, too. So, I think not just React the technology but thinking in components versus MVC that we were doing in the past. I really do think that that's here to stay, and a good thing. I'm [inaudible]…**CHUCK:  I agree. Because Angular, Ember… AIMEE:  Yeah. CHUCK:  Several of these other frameworks have fully adopted components. AIMEE:  Yeah. CHUCK:  And they do them a little bit differently from each other but the main concept is very similar between them. JOE:  Mmhmm. CHUCK:  And so, I agree. I agree there. And yeah, the way that they're implemented is also very functional. So, I do agree with you as well, Joe. JOE: **I really hope that we look at it back and see 2015 as the year of Elm. The year that Elm finally broke free and became [laughs] the dominant language and paradigm.AIMEE: [Chuckles]JOE: [Laughs]**CHUCK:  Yeah, I just… are you hoping 2016 is that? Because 2015 definitely wasn't. It was… JOE:  No, 2015 was the dawn of the age of Elm. CHUCK:  Oh, yeah. JOE:  That's what 2015 was. I don't know that that's going to be true by any means. CHUCK:  Well, the thing is that… JOE:  But I'm going to sit here that it is. CHUCK:  So, the paradigm with Elm is very interesting. And it definitely makes a lot of things a lot easier and you don't have to have as much of a mental model of a lot of things in order to make it work. Because it's all functional. It's functional reactive. JOE:  Mmhmm, mmhmm. CHUCK:  And so, what connects to what connects to what, if I twiddle something over here the only way something's going to change over there is if you trash the object you have and write a new one that's different because it's immutable. And you have a lot of these other functional concepts that are in it. There are so many other things that go into technology adoption that it does make me a little bit hesitant because in some ways it has all of the concepts that we've all been dreaming about. And in other ways, I don't know if it really has the pull or the backing that say Angular or Ember, or not Ember, but Angular or React have with Facebook and Google behind them, to the point where they can kind of help fuel the adoption. JOE:  Right. So, it's interesting. Redux essentially exists because of Elm. The guy that did Redux read the Elm architectural guide and then based Redux on what the Elm architectural guide had. CHUCK:  Oh, that's funny. JOE:  Yeah. So, Redux exists because of Elm. Flux was kind of the dominant thing and then when Redux came around everybody just sort of said, “Wow, this is just the same idea but a better implementation.” And I think that we're seeing definitely that by and large the React community is moving to Redux, right? So Rangle, a company, they're just a company, they do a few little things. Anyway, one of the things they do is they do some webinars. And they just had a webinar the day before yesterday called 'Why Redux is the Future of React and Angular 2', which I thought was very interesting. I didn't actually get to watch the entire thing. I saw some of the slides and watched a little bit of it, but definitely a viewpoint I think that resonates with me. One of the things that I've been doing recently is digging into Angular 2. And I've noticed there are some interesting by-products of the way that their change detection works. And so, in Angular 1 you could have these simple order by and filter pipes that you just stick onto a data source and then you could easily order and filter that data source. Well, in Angular 2 it's not quite so simple just because of the way that change detection works. In order for it to be a lot more efficient and faster, you can't constantly be running all your change detection every time. And so, because of that there's this issue. Well, if you're using Redux as your architecture behind that, all those issues completely go away. And it actually solves and simplifies a ton of things. So, I don't know. So, my prediction I guess would be that maybe 2016 is the year that Redux becomes a dominant framework to use, to do in not just React but hopefully in Angular 2 as well. AIMEE:  I would agree with you there. CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  Alright, next prediction. AIMEE:  What about Rx? CHUCK:  Just reactive programming in general or Rx the library? AIMEE:  Yeah, RxJS. Do you think that is going to hold steady or grow more than it already has? CHUCK:  Well, we definitely see the paradigm being picked up. AIMEE:  Yeah. CHUCK:  So… JOE:  I'm going to say it's going to grow for sure. CHUCK:  I think it's going to grow. Whether it's going to change the way we think about JavaScript, I don't know if I would go quite that far yet. What do you think, Aimee? AIMEE: **Hmm. [Laughter]**AIMEE: **Yeah. Like I've said in the past I personally really enjoy digging into all of these things. But I know a lot of people I'm surrounded with are more of the mindset that we just really want to ship features. So, it's hard for me to say because I'm kind of feeling a lot of that where it's a little bit of slow to adopt because at the end of the day your users don't really care what you're doing behind the scenes. They just want to see new features. So, [laughs] I don't know. [Chuckles]**JOE:  I think we're going to see a lot more people seeing the value of RxJS and similar things. CHUCK:  That's fair. JOE:  So, I think it's going to become more interesting. There was a blog post that I myself haven't read yet by Victor… oh, I'm blanking on his last name but he's from the Angular team. CHUCK:  Savkin. JOE:  Savkin, there we go. He talks about using observables with Angular 2. And so, he kind of talked about RxJS. I'll link to that. But I've heard that that's an interesting paradigm that doesn't apply just to Angular 2 but could be applied to React and to other things. So, I think that Rx… CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  Is definitely going to become more popular. CHUCK:  I think it's going to become more popular. Here's why I'm hesitating. And I can't really put words around this, so don't take this as a well-reasoned argument. But the more I look at Rx and the more that I look at some of the specs that have come out for ES 2016 and 2017 with observables and some of these other things that they've come out with and the scrapped and then they come out with something else and scrap it, I really feel like we're kind of… Rx is going to continue to prime us for the next thing, whatever the next thing is that really solves this problem in a really, really elegant way. JOE:  Interesting. So, let's talk about 2015 and 2016 and ES 6 and 7 and that. CHUCK:  Alright. So, ES 2015, is it going to get wider adoption in 2016? AIMEE: **I think so. I hope so, anyway. [Chuckles]**CHUCK:  I think it inevitably will. But I don't know if it's going to get massive adoption this year. JOE:  So, I'm going to say that we are going to see a huge uptake in adoption for one big reason. Angular 2. CHUCK:  Fair enough. I think that's going to drive some of it. If React adopts it that will drive some of it. But there are a lot of people out there still writing stuff that doesn't really fall under a framework or still using things like Backbone or Ember that don't really push you into ES 6. JOE:  Yeah. That's quite true. But React just like Angular 2 you can write in ES 5. But very few people are doing it, especially because of the JSX. They're still putting in a build step. So, once you're putting in a build step… CHUCK:  Right. JOE:  Then they might as well just be doing ES 6. And I think as popular as React has recently become, it's still nowhere near as popular as Angular 1 is. And so, as people look at Angular 2 there's a ton of people out there that are going to be looking at Angular 2. And they're going to be seeing it and for the first time considering adding a build to what they're doing. And it's going to be, they're going to be probably doing TypeScript and therefore ES 6. CHUCK:  Yeah. The other reason I hesitate though is that there are a lot of folks out there that are not doing… like JavaScript is sort of incidental to making their page more usable or more whatever-able. And their main focus is on the .NET or Ruby or whatever else on the backend. And so, I really don't know if that section of the community is going to move even this year. I think some of them will. But I think eventually what's going to happen is that some of these frameworks that are backend frameworks will start to adopt these tools because they make things easier. And that's when I think we'll see the major shift. And I don't think that's going to happen this year. AIMEE:  See, I like your insight there, too. Because Chuck, you're more heavily involved in other communities than probably Joe and I are. So, it's interesting… JOE:  For sure. AIMEE: **To get your perspective on that. Because I feel like that's a little bit of what I see as well. So, being that I'm not in the JavaScript Mecca of Utah or San Francisco. [Laughter]**JOE:  Yeah, for sure. CHUCK:  Yeah. So, that's my thinking. I think eventually it'll get to the point where some of these frameworks like Rails for example, which bought into CoffeeScript pretty early on, I think it's just going to get to the point where they can't ignore it. And I think they're going to be forced into becoming current and adopting the new tools. JOE:  Alright. So then, TypeScript. CHUCK:  TypeScript? JOE:  What's going to happen with TypeScript in 2016? CHUCK:  I think as ES 6 goes, TypeScript goes. AIMEE:  I think it's going to grow, especially… CHUCK:  So, it'll grow. It'll grow at the same rate basically. Some people… JOE:  So, will it…? CHUCK:  Some people will adopt ES 2015 and then they're going to look at TypeScript and they're going to go, “Oh, and I want that, too.” JOE:  So, will its growth only be due to the growth of Angular because Angular and TypeScript are heavily used together? Or will it grow beyond the influence of Angular 2? AIMEE: **I think it's going to grow beyond, especially… I don't know if you saw last week, [inaudible] conversation between some of the people on the Ember team about TypeScript that they were starting to look at that. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens there.CHUCK:  I think for this year, I think Angular 2 is going to be the primary driver of TypeScript's adoption. AIMEE:  Yup. CHUCK:  But I think next year is when we're going to see the major swing that I'm talking about with ES 6 or ES 2015. And I think that's when people are going to look at it and go, “You know, I do like type systems and I do like some of the things I see about TypeScript.” And then ES 6 will drive the adoption for it next year. JOE:  Says the guy who doesn't use a typed language. AIMEE: [Laughs]**CHUCK: **That true, I don't. [Chuckles]**JOE:  So, you think the people are going to start to see value in typed systems? CHUCK:  I think so. Mostly from what I've looked at with TypeScript and done some things is that their type annotations, you don't necessarily have to even use them all the time. And so, people will start to adopt them where they make a lot of sense. AIMEE: **I will say too, because my perspective on a lot of these things, like TypeScript or Redux or things like that, although they are kind of [inaudible] their tools I feel like it is probably valuable to dig into them a little bit. Because it will introduce you to more design patterns or other things if you've only predominantly done like for me Rails or Ruby and then a little bit of JavaScript. So, it's starting to open my eyes to other things.**JOE:  Mm. AIMEE: **Like functional programming, pretty much that. [Chuckles]JOE:  Interesting. AIMEE:  Which I think learning about that has helped me just write better code in general. JOE:  Well, so we got Flow and TypeScript that are bringing types more into the JavaScript world. So, as 2016 passes and we go beyond it, do you think types will become more, not just slightly more universal, but do you think we'll see an age where JavaScript is almost essentially typed? Just, it's just used with a typed language in general, in the vast majority of cases? CHUCK:  Mm, I don't know. It's definitely convenient to be able to just var something up. JOE:  Indeed it is. AIMEE: [Chuckles] I don't know if I have enough of an opinion on this to say either way. [Chuckles]**CHUCK:  Yeah, I don't have a strong feeling on that one either way. I think people are just going to do… you're fighting momentum here. And so, I think some people are going to find that it solves major pain points for them and they'll switch. And I think a lot of people will just keep doing what they do. JOE:  Okay. What else is a surprise or an interesting development in 2015? I think npm was an interesting development. CHUCK:  Yes. JOE:  That we say, I don't know if I'd call it quite the death of Bower. But the sunsetting of Bower for the frontend and then the use of npm as the primary way to get… Angular has completely embraced it and said they're delivering Angular through npm. There are CDNs for Angular. But their primary delivery method is going to be npm. They stated that. So, what will happen in 2016? CHUCK:  Well, I think a lot of our tools, so related to this but not exactly on the same vein, where you're talking about npm got… it kind of cemented itself as the way to get JavaScript code even for the frontend. JOE:  Mmhmm. CHUCK:  I think that's going to continue to be strengthened. And then I think we're going to see a lot of consolidation of other tools. We talked about the tools fatigue a little bit. But I think a lot of these other tools are eventually going to be adopted. I think we're going to start to see some clear winners emerge as far as the way to do things. JOE:  Okay. So, this is an interesting thing. Kent Dodds put this poll up. With npm, you cannot push, publish a module that doesn't… or publish a package that doesn't use a module system. By default, npm means it's a module. So, it uses a module system. But with Bower you could definitely publish stuff that didn't use a module system. Is that a strength or a weakness? CHUCK:  In my opinion it's mostly a strength. I can see cases where it's like, “I just want some JavaScript code. Just load the file,” la-la-la-la-la. But the module systems really make it convenient to be able to pull in and manage and understand where everything is. AIMEE:  I'm going to agree there. I think it's good to have one uniform way to do it. CHUCK: **Oh, I don't know if we're ever going to get one uniform way to do it. [Chuckles]**AIMEE:  Well, meaning that you're loading it that way. CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE: **There will be a uniform way. Gulm Package Manager. [Laughter]**AIMEE: **So, I actually had one other thought. On Angular earlier you mentioned developers. And I don't know if it would be worthwhile. I'm curious about that because I actually think that is a… it is a trend besides [inaudible].JOE:  Was 2015 the year of the bootcamp? AIMEE: [Chuckles] Well, I guess.CHUCK:  Even 2014 and 2013 there were bootcamps out there. JOE:  So, I definitely have some strong opinions about bootcamps in general and education really at large. I think that bootcamps are a step on the path in the right direction. CHUCK:  Mmhmm. JOE:  That universities are definitely the wrong… what universities are doing right now are the wrong direction. They're not getting us what we need out of our education system. And now that's not to say that Computer Science degrees are not a good thing to have. But so long as what you are interested in studying is the science of programming. Whereas if you're just trying to get a job and be a programmer or just do programming, the Engineering I guess, Software Engineering, that's different. It's an entirely different thing. So that being said, I don't think that Computer Science degrees at universities are the best way to learn that. You do learn it somewhat. But you also spend a lot of time doing things that don't matter and not nearly as applicable. Bootcamps on the other hand are probably in my opinion, their biggest problem is just that they're too short. They only take somebody that's really close or else has a super high amount of drive and prepare them for a job. Here in Utah there's a university called Neumont University that's been operating for quite a while. They did have an 18-month program. Now it's like a 24-month and it's close to full-time I think. It's either six or eight hours a day. CHUCK:  Mmhmm. JOE:  For that time frame. And for the last year or even year and a half you're just working on projects doing basically sort of internships. So, I've been… we've actually hired several of their graduates, the companies that I've been at. And always been happy with what we've gotten. So, I think they're a little bit closer. The bootcamp's problem is just that they're too short, not that there's anything… I'm not… maybe there's other things wrong with them, certainly specific cases. But in general, I like what bootcamps do. I just think they're too short. CHUCK:  Yeah. My issue is related to that but mainly is that they sell themselves as, “You come in, you do everything we tell you to do and then you go out and you get a job.” And that's just not the case because they're so short and people are finding that they're not quite ready to be hired. And so, we have people come into the community that then have to go out and flail around and struggle in order to get that job they thought that they were supposed to get. And the other thing is I don't think any of these, the universities or the bootcamps really explain to people what it's like to have a coding job. I don't know if you really can without people actually doing it. But those are kind of the issues. So, you have people that come out, they flail around, they finally get a job. Or you have people that they come out, they're driven, they find a mentor, and they get a job pretty fast. Or you get people that come out, they get a job, they wind up at some crappy company because they didn't know to select away from that company. And then they wind up becoming disillusioned with what they thought they were going to get because they thought they were going to get a job where they were going to be intellectually stimulated with professional people around them and they were going to grow up into whatever it is that they thought they were going to get. And in reality what they wound up with is they took the first job that they got offered and it turned out to be a place where they wanted them to work 80 hours a week. And they threw… AIMEE: [Chuckles]**CHUCK:  Work at them that they either weren't ready for or work at them that was kind of below their skill even at a junior developer. And so, they're not really being stimulated the way that they want or need to. So in the end, they got stuck in a crappy company or maybe they just weren't cut out for the team that they were in or any of these other things that come into having a great job. And so, they don't work out. The other thing is that we're still going through some of the growing pains with women in tech and minorities in tech. And depending on where you are, some of these are really big issues. And in other areas they don't seem to come up as much either because the minorities really are super minorities or because people are just I guess nicer in those areas. I don't know which. So, they're dealing with the growing pains and the fact that they're new and the fact that they didn't know that they needed to not take the job they took. AIMEE:  So, in your guys' experience for the bootcamp that people you talk to, is that a trend that you think companies should consider or do you have opinions on that? CHUCK:  I don't know if I would put that burden on the companies. They certainly bear some burden toward having a beginner-friendly or minority-friendly place to work. And they bear some of the burden as far as hiring people that fit well with their organization. But I put most of the brunt to that back on the bootcamps. If you're going to tell somebody, “Do what we say and you'll get a job when you graduate,” then make sure that you have a program where if they do what you say, when they graduate they can get a job. AIMEE:  Oh yeah, definitely. I guess, so you're kind of saying like it's a combination. I guess my question was, do you think it's worthwhile for companies to invest? CHUCK:  In bootcamp graduates? AIMEE:  Correct. CHUCK:  I think it depends. JOE:  I do. I do. I think that it absolutely is beneficial. I think in some case, it's a little bit of the tragedy of the commons, right? As a company maybe it doesn't make pure financial sense in the very short term when you look at just yourself and say, “Oh wow, if we went and hired a junior developer it would take a year before they were really up to speed,” especially a graduate from a bootcamp. It'd take a year before they're really up to speed and even at a reasonably low pay rate, it's funny because there's definitely a point where somebody can be an actual net negative, right? CHUCK:  Mmhmm. JOE:  ON a software project. AIMEE:  Yup. JOE: **Because you can't just sit them in the corner and have them occasionally go and fetch coffee. [Laughter]JOE:  That just doesn't work, right? They're going to be coding. And if you code and there are plenty of people that write bad code regardless, but the less experience you have, the easier it is to write code that is going to hurt your organization. So, they could be a net negative. And so, I'm okay with the fact that certain, really, really junior people might be for a while a net negative when it comes to purely just a code output. But if every company out there was regularly bringing on new bootcamp graduates, putting them through a nice, good long year internship and first job, junior level job, then at the end of that… and if they were doing this with a high percentage compared to the number of people that they already have on staff, I don't know if that's one out of 10 or one out of five or whatever the number is. But right now we don't have anywhere near those numbers. Most companies are hesitant to hire anybody with less than two or three years of experience let alone zero years of experience. But if we did that all of a sudden we'd have a ton more programmers. And companies would find one, it's easier to find really good talent because there'd be a lot more talent in the industry. And the schools would have an easier time recruiting more people and then more people would get into software development. And therefore it would also be easier for minorities to get into software development. CHUCK:  I'm picking up what you're putting down. But it is, it's the tragedy of the commons. Because the concern that I hear from employers is, “Well, we hire junior people. They work for us for a year or two, learn everything we have to teach them, and then they leave.” JOE:  Yeah. And that's as much the fault of the employer as anybody else. CHUCK:  Oh, fair enough. But… JOE:  And it's always true that it's so hard to talk to somebody, bring them on very… in a starting position and then start to see them as a senior, as they get more and more seniority. It's very difficult to see somebody in a new light and it's easier to just go someplace else. But, so then the company can just hire somebody else's junior developer and do the same thing, right? They just poach somebody else. They just trade. “Here, you take ours. We'll take yours.” AIMEE: [Laughs] That's a good idea. [Laughs]JOE: [Chuckles] And the problem's solved.**AIMEE: **Okay. I didn't mean to [inaudible] us too much away from JavaScript.**CHUCK:  No, but it is an interesting thing. We see all these people coming into the community and into these bootcamps and into some of these other areas of programming through the bootcamps or by self-learning. And a lot of times we don't know what to do with them when they're coming out. And I think the growth of the community and the number of people coming into the industry is going to continue to grow. And so, what do we do? How do we put something out there that will help these people actually make it? Because we need them to make it. Joe's pointed out that a lot of these companies need more people. And if these people are coming in going through the bootcamp and getting lost, then our entire community is suffering because we don't have enough people to do all the work, let alone any of the benefits we get from things like diversity of thought and diversity of background and diversity of experience. Or just people's expertise from previous work that wasn't programming, be they accountants or doctors or anybody else that decides that they want a different career. JOE:  Yeah. Or just having enough people, regardless of… CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  Their having more diversity, even though that's obviously a good thing. Just having enough people to hire. You know, if you're a company and you're tired of spending so much on… this actually sounds like a really bad thing to say, but if you want to lower the pay rates of software engineers, you need some more software engineers to hire. That are all good. And… CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  In the end it would be better for the economy as a whole if software development is cheaper. Right now it's super expensive. CHUCK:  Yeah, but I don't even see that happening as a trend. JOE:  Oh, no. CHUCK:  The number of people we would have to bring in, in order to hit that, would be astronomical. JOE:  Oh yeah. CHUCK:  Compared to what we're bringing in now. JOE: **Yeah. We're not anywhere near that. I'm just trying to stem the tide of way too many unfilled jobs and [inaudible] that at all.**CHUCK:  Yeah, but the other thing is that… you go to CES sometime and walk through there and think, “How many of these companies need programmers?” And it's growing every year. So, it's not just that, “Oh, we need to fill the jobs that we have right now,” but new jobs in our industry are being created every day. JOE:  Right. CHUCK:  And they need to be filled, too. And… JOE:  You know, it's… Go ahead. CHUCK:  We need efficient ways of getting people in, getting them contributing, and making them productive members of our community. AIMEE:  I would say… JOE:  You know, it's funny… Go ahead, sorry. AIMEE:  Oh, sorry. So, I would say too, I feel like a lot of times the issue might even not be so much as getting people in as it is… well, I guess we're kind of talking about that. Just getting people to stay. CHUCK:  Yeah. AIMEE:  Especially minorities. CHUCK:  Right. Because we need them to feel like they belong. But if they walk in and they look around they don't feel like they belong, either because of the posters on the wall or the way that people act in there or anything else, yeah it's a problem. JOE: **Right. And this is a little bit related but I read this very interesting [inaudible] post about unfilled jobs. And there is people talking about, “We're only producing this many graduates per year and there are this many jobs being this year,” blah, blah, blah. But what was interesting was, somebody else came on and just said, “Well, that has zero to do with it. It's all completely an economics problem.” It's not that there's a shortage of developers. It's the fact that there's a shortage of developers who are willing to work for what companies are willing to pay, right? If companies decided they're only going to pay $15 an hour for software development, the shortage that we feel like we have right now would be nothing compared to what we would truly have. And if companies were willing to pay half a million dollars a year for software development, I'll bet the shortage would go away pretty quick.CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  Obviously there's only so many people right now to fill it, but a lot more people that are not doing software development would go into software development. Even right now, even though it pays really well, it still could be worse. So, it was kind of interesting that it's not so much a matter of… there isn't like a fixed number of software development jobs. Companies, if they could hire software developers for half as much, they'd probably hire twice as many because they could utilize them. CHUCK:  Yeah. Alright. JOE:  Totally a side note. CHUCK:  Yeah. AIMEE: [Chuckles]**JOE:  Totally tangential. AIMEE: **Yeah, I'm sorry we derailed from JavaScript. [Chuckles]JOE:  So, is 2015… CHUCK:  No, it's important. JOE:  Or 2016 going to see an increase in bootcamps? We're going to see new kinds of bootcamps? CHUCK:  I think we're going to see new kinds of bootcamps. AIMEE:  I hope we do. CHUCK:  I think people are really starting to understand the pros and cons with bootcamps. They're also starting to understand who really thrives in the current bootcamp economy. JOE:  Mmhmm. CHUCK:  So, I think we're going to see different kinds of bootcamps come out where people can get more one-on-one or can get more this or more that, whatever it is that they need and eliminate some of the downsides and take advantages of the strengths of people coming in. JOE:  So, I think one thing that's worth mentioning is Thinkful. CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  They have a pretty unique program where you just pay per month based on the number of hours that you want to be spending. And that gives you a certain number of yours with their mentors and stuff. They do have a curriculum to go through. But it's not so much a, “We're a three-month full-time program.” CHUCK:  Mmhmm. JOE:  And they actually have a lot of different programs. They now have a, I think they called it Software Engineering, but a place where you learn what big O is and data structures and algorithms and things like that, which aren't being taught at bootcamps. It's a longer program that they have. They're definitely already experimenting with, how can we do bootcamps differently? And they're an online one as well. CHUCK:  I think you're thinking of Bloc.io's Software Engineering track. JOE:  Maybe that's the one that I'm thinking of. CHUCK:  But Think… JOE:  Bloc is also an online one. CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  Thinkful does do the month-to-month one where… CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  I'm actually looking at enrolling my daughter where you just can pay for month and you can stay on and keep learning as long as you're paying. CHUCK:  Yeah. And you get one-on-one mentorship I think on both of those companies. And you just do your homework and move ahead. JOE:  Right. CHUCK:  Yeah, I think we're going to see more paradigms. I think we're going to be surprised by some of the paradigms that wind up working for people. JOE:  Right, totally agree. CHUCK:  Is there anything we don't agree on? Because it seems like we've all kind of… AIMEE: [Laughs]CHUCK:  Come to a consensus on all of these different things. AIMEE:  So, I have one more question I will throw out there. Because I don't know, I like to be maybe the proponent here for the backend. Do we think that Node is going to increase at all or is it going to stay pretty steady? CHUCK:  Increase relative to what? Where it is now or other communities? AIMEE:  Are other communities going to start looking at Node? Are we going to see more people potentially who have Rails apps trying to maybe port some of that over into Node? Or maybe other people besides Rails. JOE:  I think it is definitely getting more popular. But I don't think that its popularity rate is going to increase. CHUCK:  Right. AIMEE:  Okay. So, it's just going to hold steady JOE:  Yeah. It'll hold still. It'll continually get more popular and we're already seeing still more and more transfers of apps from something else into Node. So, I think it'll continue to get more popular, but that rate of gain won't get any faster than it is right now. CHUCK:  Yeah, I think a lot of companies have a lot of momentum tied up in these other systems. And so, unless those systems either give them a reason to move or Node all of a sudden… something comes out in Node where it's a total slam dunk because we can get five times the amount of work done and make six times the amount of money on it, I just don't know that people are really going to have a major movement one way or the other. JOE:  Right. I want to make another prediction. I think that 2016 is going to be the year of Aimee Knight. AIMEE: [Laughs]CHUCK:  Ta-da! JOE:  She's going to write a new MVC framework, frontend MVC framework. AIMEE: [Laughs]**JOE: **It's going to become the dominant MVC framework. [Laughter]JOE:  And she'll become a household name. That's my prediction for 2016. CHUCK:  There you go. JOE:  She'll probably be working for Mozilla. AIMEE: [Laughs][inaudible]**CHUCK:  She'll be CEO of Mozilla. She's the next Brendan Eich. JOE:  I agree. Yup. AIMEE:  Yeah. CHUCK:  So, one thing that I said on Adventures in Angular, I'm going to say it here too, is that I really think that mobile, building mobile apps with JavaScript, is going to take off this year. I don't think it's going to be a rocket ship. I think that's next year. I think this year a lot of it's just going to, I think it's really going to take off. They're going to work out a lot of the kinks and it's just going to take off. AIMEE: **I think you're right there, too. Again, agreeing with you. [Chuckles] We should say something…**CHUCK:  Oh, I got dissension in the ranks. AIMEE:  We should say something that we won't agree on. CHUCK:  I'm trying to find one. What about testing? Are more people going to start testing next year? AIMEE: **I think 2016 is the year that Emacs will die. [Chuckles] Just kidding.CHUCK: [Laughs]**AIMEE: **Just kidding. [Chuckles]CHUCK:  It is a tough and hardy plant. I don't think it's going to happen. AIMEE: [Laughs] Yeah. That's all I could think of. Not making any Star Wars comments.JOE: [Chuckles]AIMEE: [Inaudible]**CHUCK:  Do you think people are going to move more toward text editors or more toward IDEs? Like, fully functional IDEs? AIMEE:  Mm, I kind of rotate back and forth, which might sound weird because they say you should only use one. But I use vim for some things and then I use WebStorm for some things, kind of depending on what I'm doing. Like, if I'm just doing something from scratch I'll open up vim and do it. But if I'm refactoring a ton I'll open up WebStorm. CHUCK:  Yeah, I was going to say, you got the refactoring tools and the debugging tools in WebStorm that are really handy. JOE:  I think VS Code's going to become the dominant tool. CHUCK:  You think so? JOE:  Yup. AIMEE:  It is nice. I've looked at it a little bit. CHUCK:  Well, and people like the hackability of it being written in JavaScript, because it's an Electron app. So, I don't know if that'll necessarily be the case. I think there's a lot of momentum with people there, too. So, unless somebody shows them that VS Code makes things better, vastly better, I don't think people are going to move. JOE: **I disagree with you. I think you're stupid. [Laughter]JOE:  There we go, some dissension. CHUCK:  Yay! JOE: [Laughs]AIMEE:  You're supposed to say, “That's dumb. I don't like it,” right? CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE:  Yup. If you disagree with me, you must be an idiot. AIMEE: [Chuckles]**JOE: **I think 2016 is the year that people are going to be jerks on the internet. [Laughter]AIMEE:  I completely agree. CHUCK:  Yeah. JOE: [Laughs] You jerk.**AIMEE: **Which totally brings me to my point that I want to do an episode on burnout because I feel like a lot of that attitude is burnout. The more I dig into this topic and talk to more people, I am convinced that yeah, just this industry will lead you into a little bit of negativity. [Chuckles]CHUCK:  So, this year is the year of Aimee's pyromania. AIMEE: [Laughs] No, I will always be [nice].CHUCK:  Watch out, Baltimore. JOE:  This is the year of Aimee's killing spree. It was going to be the year of Aimee Knight. I just didn't know why. AIMEE:  Oh! CHUCK:  Yeah. AIMEE:  Oh no, no. JOE: [Laughs]CHUCK:  Yeah, she stabs people and stuffs them under park benches. JOE: [Laughs]AIMEE:  Oh my gosh. Please don't put this on air. That's terrible. JOE: [Laughs]**AIMEE: **No. [Laughter]CHUCK:  Alright. Should we get to picks? AIMEE:  Yes, please. JOE:  Let's. CHUCK: [Laughs] Make it stop! [Laughter]**CHUCK:  Alright. Joe, what are your picks? JOE:  So, let's see. I'm going to pick that article, blog post that Victor Savkin wrote. I think that's awesome and a great read. I'm also going to pick the new game that just came out. By the time you hear this it'll have been out for a little while. Desserts of Kharak. It's Homeworld. For anybody who happened to play Homeworld back in the day which was one of the best RTS's every made. This is a new one but it's actually on the ground like StarCraft but really well done. I've been playing through the single-player campaign having a ton of fun with it. So, I'm going to pick that. And then I'm going to pick a board game as well. The Prodigals Club, which I recently played for the first time and had a ton of fun playing it. And it's this game where you're like in the 1920s or 1890s or something. And your whole goal is you got a big inheritance and you have this secret bet with your friends to see who can screw things up the worst. So, you're trying to make yourself unpopular with all the popular people like the gentry. You're trying to… you've been entered into an election. You're trying to lose it. And then you've also got a whole bunch of possessions. You're trying to get rid of them. And whoever does it the most effectively wins. Super fun game and I had a really fun time playing it. So, that'll be my pick. Those will be my picks. CHUCK:  Cool. Alright Aimee, what are your picks? AIMEE: **Let's see. I have a couple. And the first one is ASTExplorer.net. So, that is my first pick. It looks pretty cool to play around with. The second pick, I want to thank some people again. One of my… maybe not so much a mentor but actually the bootcamp that I went to the frontend instructor. And I still keep in touch with him a good bit. So, his name is Chyld Medford. And I just, he listens a lot. So, I wanted to make sure I thanked him on here. So, another pick this week is same pick last week but it's worth mentioning again in case you don't listen every week, is I want to pick Mandy, the girl who does all of the editing for the podcasts. Her daughter is selling Girl Scout cookies. So, who doesn't love Girl Scout cookies? And you can actually order them online and get them shipped to you. So, you should totally support the show, totally support Mandy and her daughter because as a Girl Scout I know how awesome it feels to sell Girl Scout cookies. So, you should give her daughter lots of orders. And that's it. [Chuckles]CHUCK:  I am, as I tell people, watching my girlish figure. And I told her she could not send me any of those cookies, especially Thin Mints because I will eat pack after pack after pack. AIMEE:  You should have a cheat day. CHUCK:  I do have a cheat day periodically. But my cheat day would be pack after pack after… AIMEE: [Laughs]**CHUCK:  It would be bad. AIMEE:  Aww. You could totally eat, once you get to a certain point, you could totally have a cheat day. Because doing a little bit like dieting for too long will eventually slow down your metabolism. So, after you've been doing it a couple of months, have a cheat day. CHUCK:  Yeah, what I tend to do is every so often I'll get like a, “Oh, I really want a hamburger from the hamburger place,” or something. AIMEE:  Yup, yup. CHUCK: **And if it's been a couple of weeks since I indulged last then I'll just go get it. [Chuckles]**AIMEE: Yeah. And the good thing is, if you eat clean for so long, for me when I do, do a cheat day and I eat something bad it tastes really good but then a couple of hours later I really regret it. So, it keeps me from doing it for too long. [Chuckles]CHUCK:  Yeah, we don't need the details on really regretting it. AIMEE: [Laughs] No, I just mean I get like a headache and stuff like that because I'm not used to it.CHUCK:  Right. AIMEE:  That is it for me. CHUCK:  Alright. I've got a couple of picks. The first one is I bought myself… so I have a standing desk and I put all my podcasting equipment to force myself to stand up at least part of the week. But some days like today I've just been really, really exhausted. My wife's been sick for about four or five days so I've been playing chauffeur dad. Anyway, so I bought myself, it's a Mogo Portable Seat. And basically it's like a one-leg seat. So, you kind of lean on it. You have to maintain your own balance obviously. But anyway, it's really kind of cool. And I haven't actually gotten it yet. So, I'll probably have to give a review of it later on. But anyway, that's one thing that I'm looking forward to getting. So, kind of germane to some of this conversation that we've had is the talk about junior developers and finding a job. And I've had quite a few people that I've talked to that have this problem. And on top of that, I'm going to be on the Code Newbie Podcast here in a few weeks with Saron who's on the Ruby Rogues Podcast regularly. And so, I'm writing, I've been writing a book for a while on how to find a job as a new developer. And so, I'm going to be putting that out. And I found a video by Patt Flynn who I actually really admire. And he put together a video on how to get a rough draft done fast. So, if you're writing a book go check that out. And finally I just do want to do a quick shout-out. You're probably not interested in Ruby or iOS Remote Confs but I am doing a remote conference on React. And that will be in May. AIMEE:  Woohoo! CHUCK:  So, if you're interested in that, go to ReactRemoteConf.com. Call for Proposals is open. Early bird tickets are available. So yeah, by all means go get tickets. You can actually get packs for the tickets and then you can go to Robots Remote Conf or Git Remote Conf or Angular Remote Conf or any of the other ones. So anyway, if that's kind of your deal then go check those out. Anyway, so we'll wrap up the show. Thank you all for coming and we'll catch you all next week. [Hosting and bandwidth provided by the Blue Box Group. Check them out at BlueBox.net.]**[Bandwidth for this segment is provided by CacheFly, the world’s fastest CDN. Deliver your content fast with CacheFly. Visit CacheFly.com to learn more.]**[Do you wish you could be part of the discussion on JavaScript Jabber? Do you have a burning question for one of our guests? Now you can join the action at our membership forum. You can sign up at JavaScriptJabber.com and there you can join discussions with the regular panelists and our guests.]**

Sign up for the Newsletter

Join our newsletter and get updates in your inbox. We won’t spam you and we respect your privacy.