‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Salesforce Global Outage

280 points · 184 comments · mabil

  1. reddalo · · focus · HN ↗
    I can't understand how such a huge company can have such a lousy UX.
    1. WinstonSmith84 · · focus · HN ↗
      Peak Tech Salesforce was 2010 +/- 2 years - i.e. after Visualforce and before Aura era. It used to be a developer oriented platform and it became shiny/flashy garbage eventually. But all these shiny things allowed them to get a large market cap with very brilliant sales people, it's hard to deny.
      1. dd8601fn · · focus · HN ↗
        VF and Aura overlapped. Aura was just a bad start and janky. We sometimes just did React instead, for a while.

        LWC is worlds better. And the local tooling with the cli and VSCode extensions is miles better than the old Eclipse/Sublime FMT days.

        1. WinstonSmith84 · · focus · HN ↗
          Aura existed simply because Salesforce thought to be smarter than open source, well. Can't deny it though: Salesforce engineers were great on the backend, but frontend dev has never been their thing. Back then there was Angular 1 which was miles ahead. React was released shortly after Aura itself, so to say. LWC is what Aura shall have been 10+ years ago. And that ties back to what OP wrote: awful UX extremely slow bloated with JS.

          Now, don't talk me about VSCode Extensions. This is the perfect example of an awful dev experience. apex-jorje-lsp.jar with a JVM to parse Apex taking GB of memories, extensions taking dozens of seconds to load (when they load) ... In fact, the only decent LSP is aer, a simple decently working Go binary rather than the monster Salesforce shipped. The one good tooling Salesforce built in the last 15 years is, to some extent, the SF CLI - which came after the `force` CLI from the same guys who built `aer`, anyway. And nowadays, people can use that with their preferred editor from Zed to Vim with shortcuts from built upon the SF CLI.

          So no, Salesforce didn't do great with tooling, they just did the bare minimum waiting on the (small) community to give them the right ideas.

          1. prettychill · · focus · HN ↗
            aura was open source for a long time. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;forcedotcom&#x2F;aura" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;forcedotcom&#x2F;aura
            1. WinstonSmith84 · · focus · HN ↗
              That&#x27;s not what I meant. Salesforce had a choice to use (and support) battle tested frameworks, and decided instead to build their own one.
              1. abeyer · · focus · HN ↗
                To be fair, they came in with some requirements that I don&#x27;t think anyone else had at the time, and even today aren&#x27;t in any mainstream ones afaik.

                I think the biggest difference was around providing security and stability barriers between front-end components on the same page, with the intent of allowing you to compose a page that contains your own components and those of other third party applications you&#x27;ve installed with guarantees about how they can (and can&#x27;t) interact. Not sure they couldn&#x27;t have tacked that onto another framework, but it comes with enough trade-offs and compromises that I&#x27;m not sure anyone else would have wanted to upstream it, so they would have been forking something anyway.

                Aura wasn&#x27;t much fun to work with, was never really feature complete, and not advocating for it... but it actually kind of made sense if you thought about front end with the context of how salesforce did security and multitenancy in mind.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.