Look — I’m old enough to remember when the “web standards movement” was controversial. I had to argue with my boss about using CSS vs tables. And I remember when you did need javascript to do a lot of things that HTML now does natively. JS frameworks had to exist to push the state of the art, because the state of the art got stuck. The standards bodies and browser vendors got their shit together, and now you can do things you used to need frameworks for in plain HTML. That’s great! But let’s not re-write history, here.
Software is in a constant state of revolution and counter-revolution. It’s one of the things that keeps this job interesting.
Sort of but it just builds on top of cruft. CSS and html is poorly designed to do what we are doing with it today.
Like I understand the point of not building bloat. But the reason why people build bloated stuff like react is because the primitives are just raw shit. HTML and css is just really bad.
Oh? All things considered, I believe html and css are both great. Incredibly flexible and very easy to get a basic "framework" started for consistent design
Everything else I've used to date (for UIs) was either extremely limited or way more complicated to use in comparison
I personally feel like the only thing we're missing is a way more aggressive deprecation policy. Not actually removing the API, just clearly signal that you would probably be better off not using it in 2025.
CSS is incredible technology, but holy shit does it feel archaic in a large Typescript project to have a massive design system in a string.
Why can’t I click an element and see the css files that apply to it? Why can I get autocomplete for my utility classes and custom properties? I would happily nuke CSS from a project for a typescript library that could marry the two worlds with minimal trade-offs, but I’ve yet to have the time or courage to dive into a library like vanilla-extract: https://vanilla-extract.style
Look - the content is good and some of us are not native English speakers. People should edit their chatgpt correction but we should stop calling everything AI generated without real proof. Anyway, if the comment is meaningful and adds to the discussion, why should I care if it was AI generated?
I agree. The structure feels like an LLM. What scares me is that the more I use it the more I feel myself writing like chatgpt. Hell even thinking in its 'tone of voice'
Software is in a constant state of revolution and counter-revolution. It’s one of the things that keeps this job interesting.