3 ms·

I think this is because of the unpredictiveness of html/css. The css api is not intuitive and there is difference between browsers.

unclebucknasty 9y ago
True, but we've solved that reasonably well enough when hand-coding that slapping a GUI code generator on top of it should be workable.
- computerex 9y ago
  A GUI web site generator is trivial and many already exist. The difference between the web and traditional desktop based programs is that you have a lot more freedom in constructing the experience on the web. Whereas a typical WinForms app is made up of a bunch of drag and drop common controls like the button or text edit, simple text editing and buttons can take many different creative forms to best suit the intended experience. So I guess another way of saying it is that older desktop based technologies like WinForms are more geared towards purely functional experiences. The web can go above and beyond providing merely functional experiences. The aesthetic and the experience as a whole is important.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >A GUI web site generator is trivial and many already exist. >older desktop based technologies like WinForms are more geared towards purely functional experiences. The web can go above and beyond providing merely functional experiences. Not talking about web sites here, but web apps, which in the modern sense are much more aligned with desktop apps than websites of old.
    - computerex 9y ago
      I meant web apps. Modern web apps offer a lot of freedom in constructing the precise experience we want the user to get. This is unlike traditional desktop applications with the cookie cutter controls that behave the same way from app to app.
      - unclebucknasty 9y ago
        That's not been my observation when it comes to SPAs, responsive apps, etc. They tend to use fairly straightforward components, layout schemes, etc. For instance, if you look at the components/layout capabilities that come baked into the latest version of Bootstrap, you'll find a lot of bases covered. Regardless, there's nothing that precludes you from wrapping any control you desire into an interface that makes it droppable and configurable through a GUI editor, then have it generate code. Likewise, for the creation of different layout managers, though in practice I don't think you'd find a ton of variability there. Most "experiences" boil down to grid-based and responsive. So, I'm not sure which precise experiences you imagine couldn't be created. It's all just code. But, if there are some, then they'd be the exception, not the rule.
        computerex 9y ago
        https://www.strikingly.com https://www.strikingly.com https://www.squarespace.com/ https://www.squarespace.com/ https://www.wix.com/ https://www.wix.com/ http://www.layoutit.com/ http://www.layoutit.com/ You can already create simple websites with tools like above. But non-trivial SPA's can't usually be constrained by tools like that because they don't allow for enough flexibility. It's not that the web hasn't caught up to GUI editor paradigm that has been around for decades. In fact WYSWYG web editors were common when the web was in its infancy.
        unclebucknasty 9y ago
        >non-trivial SPA's can't usually be constrained by tools like that because they don't allow for enough flexibility. Yeah, you've kind of repeated variations of that vague statement, to which I've replied with specific capabilities/features that SPAs and modern webapps tend to use. I've suggested that they represent very common features/layouts that can readily be constructed with the aid of a GUI tool. But, here, you've now responded with a few website builders that are not intended to be used for the kinds of SPAs/modern webapps we're discussing. That doesn't make a point, except to say that "other things exist". Do you have specific examples of SPA/webapp functionality that cannot be readily built with the aid of a GUI tool?

unclebucknasty 9y ago

True, but we've solved that reasonably well enough when hand-coding that slapping a GUI code generator on top of it should be workable.

computerex 9y ago
A GUI web site generator is trivial and many already exist. The difference between the web and traditional desktop based programs is that you have a lot more freedom in constructing the experience on the web. Whereas a typical WinForms app is made up of a bunch of drag and drop common controls like the button or text edit, simple text editing and buttons can take many different creative forms to best suit the intended experience. So I guess another way of saying it is that older desktop based technologies like WinForms are more geared towards purely functional experiences. The web can go above and beyond providing merely functional experiences. The aesthetic and the experience as a whole is important.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >A GUI web site generator is trivial and many already exist. >older desktop based technologies like WinForms are more geared towards purely functional experiences. The web can go above and beyond providing merely functional experiences. Not talking about web sites here, but web apps, which in the modern sense are much more aligned with desktop apps than websites of old.
  - computerex 9y ago
    I meant web apps. Modern web apps offer a lot of freedom in constructing the precise experience we want the user to get. This is unlike traditional desktop applications with the cookie cutter controls that behave the same way from app to app.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      That's not been my observation when it comes to SPAs, responsive apps, etc. They tend to use fairly straightforward components, layout schemes, etc. For instance, if you look at the components/layout capabilities that come baked into the latest version of Bootstrap, you'll find a lot of bases covered. Regardless, there's nothing that precludes you from wrapping any control you desire into an interface that makes it droppable and configurable through a GUI editor, then have it generate code. Likewise, for the creation of different layout managers, though in practice I don't think you'd find a ton of variability there. Most "experiences" boil down to grid-based and responsive. So, I'm not sure which precise experiences you imagine couldn't be created. It's all just code. But, if there are some, then they'd be the exception, not the rule.
      - computerex 9y ago
        https://www.strikingly.com https://www.strikingly.com https://www.squarespace.com/ https://www.squarespace.com/ https://www.wix.com/ https://www.wix.com/ http://www.layoutit.com/ http://www.layoutit.com/ You can already create simple websites with tools like above. But non-trivial SPA's can't usually be constrained by tools like that because they don't allow for enough flexibility. It's not that the web hasn't caught up to GUI editor paradigm that has been around for decades. In fact WYSWYG web editors were common when the web was in its infancy.
        unclebucknasty 9y ago
        >non-trivial SPA's can't usually be constrained by tools like that because they don't allow for enough flexibility. Yeah, you've kind of repeated variations of that vague statement, to which I've replied with specific capabilities/features that SPAs and modern webapps tend to use. I've suggested that they represent very common features/layouts that can readily be constructed with the aid of a GUI tool. But, here, you've now responded with a few website builders that are not intended to be used for the kinds of SPAs/modern webapps we're discussing. That doesn't make a point, except to say that "other things exist". Do you have specific examples of SPA/webapp functionality that cannot be readily built with the aid of a GUI tool?