4 ms·

> If people want to do something about it, they need to fork the web itself. HTTP, TLS, HTML, CSS, JS ... the entire stack needs to be scrapped and replaced wit

> If people want to do something about it, they need to fork the web itself. HTTP, TLS, HTML, CSS, JS ... the entire stack needs to be scrapped and replaced with something sensible with a focus on simplicity. That's flash.

kagamine 9y ago
> That's flash Comedy aside, CSS isn't the problem, but if an experienced web-dev can't make a site without learning for 5+ years and then feel like they have no knowledge of web development then we have a problem, and that's where we are now. The problem with the long list of frameworks and libraries available is that there is no easy way to make a web2.0 site without years and years of learning and then the resulting site is a mish-mash of what works without it being easy to maintain. Sitting here looking at .NET & angularjs 1.x and wondering where it all went wrong (actually, not the.,NET part, that seems to work).
- someonewhocar3s 9y ago
  There's a lot of people signing onto stupid web frameworks and other hype. Within .NET there is a single filter pass applied by Microsoft, but honestly I don't touch it. None of that is a proper critique on the Web. You're basically critiquing freedom of choice, which makes sense if you like .NET ;)
- chris_wot 9y ago
  CSS makes semantic markup work. CSS is not the issue, the issue is getting a decent graphical editor that does it well.
- bonzini 9y ago
  What do you mean by "make a site"? I made qemu.org last year with 10-years-old knowledge of web development and, apart from the obviously not-done-by-a-graphics-designer theme, it _is_ a decent site, responsive and with a 2010s-ish look. 99% of websites can be done with either a static generator (lean) or WordPress (somewhat bloated, but really mostly standard libraries that can be cached and/or served by a CDN). The remaining 1% are the really bloated ones and sure they are the ones that we visit all the time (medium, BBC, whatever). But it's certainly possible to make a site with not too much knowledge of web development.
  - kagamine 9y ago
    edit: ignore the huffy tone this came out in, it wasn't meant that way, early morning. I was talking about work as a professional developer. We can all 'make a site', there exists any number of solutions for that, CMSes like Wordpress, Drupal etc don't count in this argument unless _you_ wrote Wordpress or Drupal from the ground up. Being a wordpress hack isn't being a developer. You won't ever be asked to write something straightforward in enterprise, you'll need to know at least HTML5 & CSS & angular 1.0 & 2+ (or similar) & docker & gulp/grunt & backend & databases & jenkins & MVC & node/npm & version control & bootstrap (or similar) and and and. 99% of sites outside of a company that makes real money and doesn't just serve a page are sites that aren't what developers actually do at work.

kagamine 9y ago

> That's flash Comedy aside, CSS isn't the problem, but if an experienced web-dev can't make a site without learning for 5+ years and then feel like they have no knowledge of web development then we have a problem, and that's where we are now. The problem with the long list of frameworks and libraries available is that there is no easy way to make a web2.0 site without years and years of learning and then the resulting site is a mish-mash of what works without it being easy to maintain. Sitting here looking at .NET & angularjs 1.x and wondering where it all went wrong (actually, not the.,NET part, that seems to work).

someonewhocar3s 9y ago
There's a lot of people signing onto stupid web frameworks and other hype. Within .NET there is a single filter pass applied by Microsoft, but honestly I don't touch it. None of that is a proper critique on the Web. You're basically critiquing freedom of choice, which makes sense if you like .NET ;)
chris_wot 9y ago
CSS makes semantic markup work. CSS is not the issue, the issue is getting a decent graphical editor that does it well.
bonzini 9y ago
What do you mean by "make a site"? I made qemu.org last year with 10-years-old knowledge of web development and, apart from the obviously not-done-by-a-graphics-designer theme, it _is_ a decent site, responsive and with a 2010s-ish look. 99% of websites can be done with either a static generator (lean) or WordPress (somewhat bloated, but really mostly standard libraries that can be cached and/or served by a CDN). The remaining 1% are the really bloated ones and sure they are the ones that we visit all the time (medium, BBC, whatever). But it's certainly possible to make a site with not too much knowledge of web development.
- kagamine 9y ago
  edit: ignore the huffy tone this came out in, it wasn't meant that way, early morning. I was talking about work as a professional developer. We can all 'make a site', there exists any number of solutions for that, CMSes like Wordpress, Drupal etc don't count in this argument unless _you_ wrote Wordpress or Drupal from the ground up. Being a wordpress hack isn't being a developer. You won't ever be asked to write something straightforward in enterprise, you'll need to know at least HTML5 & CSS & angular 1.0 & 2+ (or similar) & docker & gulp/grunt & backend & databases & jenkins & MVC & node/npm & version control & bootstrap (or similar) and and and. 99% of sites outside of a company that makes real money and doesn't just serve a page are sites that aren't what developers actually do at work.