5 ms·

That's the problem here, actually, but not in the way you think. There are alternatives (Canvas, SVG, etc.) but they're not as good for the standard use case

That's the problem here, actually, but not in the way you think. There are alternatives (Canvas, SVG, etc.) but they're not as good for the standard use case of coming up with something quick that fulfills the business requirement. And then we need to recognize that that stack is a fucking abomination that should be burned with fire. It should so deeply embarrass us, that we wouldn't want to admit that we use it in polite company. We need people who are willing to experiment with new ideas and give us something better than HTML/CSS/JS. And we need them to get funding.

johansch 9y ago
I have been working with the web since 1997, but almost only on the server-side (back in the the simpler web 1.0 days) and (during the past decade) on the browser UX/network side. I just recently started looking at actually creating some web content that uses the modern web stack. Holy moly. What a cluster f__k of insanely over/badly-engineered craziness.
- pdfernhout 9y ago
  Try Mithil.js/HyperScript for defining HTML and Tachyons for inline-ish CSS. I've been happy with that mix. Both emphasize simplicity and maintainability.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mbrock 9y ago
What should embarrass us so deeply and why? HTML and CSS are some of the most generative, enduring, and transformative technologies ever. I wouldn't fund anyone who doesn't recognize how great they are!
- goatlover 9y ago
  HTML & CSS were good for the early web, when it was a simple document layout platform. They're not ideal for building rich UIs and applications. Just because they've been extended to allow that doesn't mean they are the best tool for the job. Similarly, Excel is abused to do all sorts of things it's not intended for as well, when there are better options for databases, financial applications and data science.
  - klibertp 9y ago
    There is a huge difference between Excel and HTML: the former is Turing-complete (in addition to containing Turing-complete scripting language(s)) and was like this for as long as I remember, while HTML is not. I guess CSS nowadays may be Turing-complete (?), but HTML is most decidedly not. That difference means that it's orders of magnitude easier to "abuse" Excel to do some things it wasn't designed to do than to do the same with HTML. I seriously wonder if the reliance on HTML to this day is not a kind of "job security" thing for web devs (like myself, btw)...
- shalabhc 9y ago
  They're embarrassing once you realize what's been done in the past, with incredibly smaller 'stacks' in much simpler systems, producing more powerful capabilities. HTML and CSS require that a large amount of information be pre-shared and implemented by different systems (i.e. all browsers need to implement ginormous standard with all subtleties). After all that, you don't even get much interactivity, you need Javascript. A better design would be to share a tiny set of primitives that are designed to compose nicely and that can be used to build up much more powerful apps.
- david927 9y ago
  Innovation is, by definition, not very respectful of the past or the status-quo. Innovation is, by definition, mutiny.
digi_owl 9y ago
The basic thing to remember is that HTML was never meant to handle UIs. It was a very basic document layout format, with some simple ways to provide the reader with addresses for references etc. It was in effect Netscape that tried to turn it into an UI as a way to get into the office network market. This riled up Microsoft, and the rest is history.
- e12e 9y ago
  You can still get pretty far with the ideas of Smalltalk, html+js and webdav: http://lively-kernel.org/ http://lively-kernel.org/ (from ~2012)
aphextron 9y ago
>We need people who are willing to experiment with new ideas and give us something better than HTML/CSS/JS. And we need them to get funding. It’s coming. In 5 years Javascript development will be a distant bad memory. Front end web will become much like native mobile development but with a richer ecosystem of IDE’s and languages based around WASM.

johansch 9y ago

I have been working with the web since 1997, but almost only on the server-side (back in the the simpler web 1.0 days) and (during the past decade) on the browser UX/network side. I just recently started looking at actually creating some web content that uses the modern web stack. Holy moly. What a cluster f__k of insanely over/badly-engineered craziness.

pdfernhout 9y ago
Try Mithil.js/HyperScript for defining HTML and Tachyons for inline-ish CSS. I've been happy with that mix. Both emphasize simplicity and maintainability.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mbrock 9y ago

What should embarrass us so deeply and why? HTML and CSS are some of the most generative, enduring, and transformative technologies ever. I wouldn't fund anyone who doesn't recognize how great they are!

goatlover 9y ago
HTML & CSS were good for the early web, when it was a simple document layout platform. They're not ideal for building rich UIs and applications. Just because they've been extended to allow that doesn't mean they are the best tool for the job. Similarly, Excel is abused to do all sorts of things it's not intended for as well, when there are better options for databases, financial applications and data science.
- klibertp 9y ago
  There is a huge difference between Excel and HTML: the former is Turing-complete (in addition to containing Turing-complete scripting language(s)) and was like this for as long as I remember, while HTML is not. I guess CSS nowadays may be Turing-complete (?), but HTML is most decidedly not. That difference means that it's orders of magnitude easier to "abuse" Excel to do some things it wasn't designed to do than to do the same with HTML. I seriously wonder if the reliance on HTML to this day is not a kind of "job security" thing for web devs (like myself, btw)...
shalabhc 9y ago
They're embarrassing once you realize what's been done in the past, with incredibly smaller 'stacks' in much simpler systems, producing more powerful capabilities. HTML and CSS require that a large amount of information be pre-shared and implemented by different systems (i.e. all browsers need to implement ginormous standard with all subtleties). After all that, you don't even get much interactivity, you need Javascript. A better design would be to share a tiny set of primitives that are designed to compose nicely and that can be used to build up much more powerful apps.
david927 9y ago
Innovation is, by definition, not very respectful of the past or the status-quo. Innovation is, by definition, mutiny.

digi_owl 9y ago

The basic thing to remember is that HTML was never meant to handle UIs. It was a very basic document layout format, with some simple ways to provide the reader with addresses for references etc. It was in effect Netscape that tried to turn it into an UI as a way to get into the office network market. This riled up Microsoft, and the rest is history.

e12e 9y ago
You can still get pretty far with the ideas of Smalltalk, html+js and webdav: http://lively-kernel.org/ http://lively-kernel.org/ (from ~2012)

aphextron 9y ago

>We need people who are willing to experiment with new ideas and give us something better than HTML/CSS/JS. And we need them to get funding. It’s coming. In 5 years Javascript development will be a distant bad memory. Front end web will become much like native mobile development but with a richer ecosystem of IDE’s and languages based around WASM.