4 ms·

I have found lately that many web things today are based on fads and they have found their way into the standards. In the past, standards were developed through

I have found lately that many web things today are based on fads and they have found their way into the standards. In the past, standards were developed through engineering and computer science. Today it's based on fireworks, explosions and emojis. Speed trumps quality. Do not want to think is the motto or slogan. If there is a framework or library I can use then, great, I don't have to know how it works so I won't bother seems to be the mantra today. Which, in my mind, reminds me of "All in the Family" scene where Gloria is talking to her friend. "Daddy said girls don't have sex, only boys do." Friend: "Then who do the boys have sex with?" Meaning, if no one is doing the thinking, who is going to write the code?

skrebbel 9y ago
I wonder which recent new web standards you think are fads. Push notifications? Offline web apps? Multithreading? async/await?
- sureaboutthis 9y ago
  Not a fad but an example of what I mean (and the only one I can think of this early in the morning). "box-sizing". This seems to have been created because people are unwilling or unable to understand the standard "box model". People find box-sizing is easier for them but it is not necessary as it only combines already available and well understood sizing properties. Worse, many even use the '*' hack to apply it to every element on their site which should make one question forcing browsers to do something browsers don't do natively. iirc, there was, or is, even an effort to make emojis part of the standard! I hesitate to give any example at all because every person who doesn't know the box model will downvote my post for the very reason I gave in my original post.
  - TheCoreh 9y ago
    Box-sizing is not a good example of a standard that was poorly engineered: it actually fixes a poorly engineered standard instead. I understand the box model, which is precisely why I think one should not have to perform mental padding calculations just to know how wide an element will be on screen. Content box sizing (the original standard) also makes CSS less composable (since the results of combining multiple classes are harder to account for). Ergonomics are a very important engineering consideration. The <!DOCTYPE html> tag also forces the browser to "do something it doesn't do natively" (enter standards mode) so does "use strict"; these are concessions one has to make when a platform evolves over 25 years and must remain backwards compatible.
    - sureaboutthis 9y ago
      I said nothing about poor engineering. >one should not have to perform mental padding calculations just to know how wide an element will be on screen This, and the paragraph, falls directly into my comment about not wanting to think or do the work. >The <!DOCTYPE html> tag also forces the browser to "do something it doesn't do natively" (enter standards mode) Bad example. Using a doctype was not originally required and was only forced into being by Microsoft not following the standard. Technically, one does not need a doctype at all but we were forced into using it so browsers know you want to be in "standards mode" and not "quirks", but this diverts from the topic.
      - TheCoreh 9y ago
        My "poor engineering" remark was a response to your original comment stating that "In the past, standards were developed through engineering and computer science." Re: "not wanting to think or do the work": why would anyone want to think more or do extra work that is not required, except perhaps for fun? Computers were created precisely to automate and abstract away mundane tasks (such as adding padding measurements mentally). Only at Google/Facebook scales the extra bytes/CPU cycles added by setting box-sizing for all elements might perhaps make a difference. For everyone else the maintenance, time benefits of reducing the mental overhead imply on actual reduced costs, since you can ship your page/app faster.
        sureaboutthis 9y ago
        My remark was in regard to my first statement about standards following fads but that does not mean the standard is poorly engineered. My main point, again, falls back to people wanting things done for them because they don't take the time to learn how things works. They want things done for them and never learn the basics, the foundation of understanding. If one cannot figure out how to make an element a certain width using "width" + padding + border + margin because they never bothered to read the specification, or any of the multitude of online tutorials, where it is clearly explained that width is the containment area alone, then this is nothing more than plain laziness mixed with "give me teh codez".
  - dbbk 9y ago
    > iirc, there was, or is, even an effort to make emojis part of the standard! Part of what standard? What are you talking about? Emojis are defined in Unicode.

skrebbel 9y ago

I wonder which recent new web standards you think are fads. Push notifications? Offline web apps? Multithreading? async/await?

sureaboutthis 9y ago
Not a fad but an example of what I mean (and the only one I can think of this early in the morning). "box-sizing". This seems to have been created because people are unwilling or unable to understand the standard "box model". People find box-sizing is easier for them but it is not necessary as it only combines already available and well understood sizing properties. Worse, many even use the '*' hack to apply it to every element on their site which should make one question forcing browsers to do something browsers don't do natively. iirc, there was, or is, even an effort to make emojis part of the standard! I hesitate to give any example at all because every person who doesn't know the box model will downvote my post for the very reason I gave in my original post.
- TheCoreh 9y ago
  Box-sizing is not a good example of a standard that was poorly engineered: it actually fixes a poorly engineered standard instead. I understand the box model, which is precisely why I think one should not have to perform mental padding calculations just to know how wide an element will be on screen. Content box sizing (the original standard) also makes CSS less composable (since the results of combining multiple classes are harder to account for). Ergonomics are a very important engineering consideration. The <!DOCTYPE html> tag also forces the browser to "do something it doesn't do natively" (enter standards mode) so does "use strict"; these are concessions one has to make when a platform evolves over 25 years and must remain backwards compatible.
  - sureaboutthis 9y ago
    I said nothing about poor engineering. >one should not have to perform mental padding calculations just to know how wide an element will be on screen This, and the paragraph, falls directly into my comment about not wanting to think or do the work. >The <!DOCTYPE html> tag also forces the browser to "do something it doesn't do natively" (enter standards mode) Bad example. Using a doctype was not originally required and was only forced into being by Microsoft not following the standard. Technically, one does not need a doctype at all but we were forced into using it so browsers know you want to be in "standards mode" and not "quirks", but this diverts from the topic.
    - TheCoreh 9y ago
      My "poor engineering" remark was a response to your original comment stating that "In the past, standards were developed through engineering and computer science." Re: "not wanting to think or do the work": why would anyone want to think more or do extra work that is not required, except perhaps for fun? Computers were created precisely to automate and abstract away mundane tasks (such as adding padding measurements mentally). Only at Google/Facebook scales the extra bytes/CPU cycles added by setting box-sizing for all elements might perhaps make a difference. For everyone else the maintenance, time benefits of reducing the mental overhead imply on actual reduced costs, since you can ship your page/app faster.
      - sureaboutthis 9y ago
        My remark was in regard to my first statement about standards following fads but that does not mean the standard is poorly engineered. My main point, again, falls back to people wanting things done for them because they don't take the time to learn how things works. They want things done for them and never learn the basics, the foundation of understanding. If one cannot figure out how to make an element a certain width using "width" + padding + border + margin because they never bothered to read the specification, or any of the multitude of online tutorials, where it is clearly explained that width is the containment area alone, then this is nothing more than plain laziness mixed with "give me teh codez".
- dbbk 9y ago
  > iirc, there was, or is, even an effort to make emojis part of the standard! Part of what standard? What are you talking about? Emojis are defined in Unicode.