4 ms·

> HTML/CSS is the very best possible declarative syntax for building interfaces ever devised really. Well... I wouldn't go that far, but over the years we've a

by drcode 8y ago

> HTML/CSS is the very best possible declarative syntax for building interfaces ever devised really. Well... I wouldn't go that far, but over the years we've all managed to work around the warts of HTML/CSS and can put up with it.

aphextron 8y ago
My argument basically comes down to the alternatives. Have you tried them? Native iOS development was a nightmare without deep mobile expertise until React Native and the like came about. Windows/Linux/Mac cross-platform apps were in the same place before Electron. IT's far from perfect, but ask anyone today what they'd prefer to build an interface with and it's most like HTML/CSS. Especially for highly graphic intensive, responsive layouts, there's almost no competition really.
- drcode 8y ago
  Well, I think it would be pretty easy to take the best ideas from HTML/CSS and make something MUCH MUCH better that would be completely incompatible with these- See for instance subform (https://medium.com/subform https://medium.com/subform) The problem with this of course is that these alternative systems aren't widely supported, but at some point I expect one of the AFGAMs to publish and push one of these alternate layout systems and attempt to get higher adoption. (Amazon Facebook Google Apple Microsoft)
- beojan 8y ago
  > Native iOS development was a nightmare without deep mobile expertise until React Native and the like came about. Doing things well requires expertise. > Windows/Linux/Mac cross-platform apps were in the same place before Electron. Seriously?! Qt predates Electron and is a far superior solution. Of course, if you only know web development, your existing knowledge doesn't translate over easily, but the reverse is equally true. > but ask anyone today what they'd prefer to build an interface with and it's most like HTML/CSS Only if they are already experienced in web development. Otherwise, Qt Quick is much better, taking the positives from CSS, without the downsides of using a document format to layout a UI. > Especially for highly graphic intensive, responsive layouts, there's almost no competition really. Seriously, Qt Quick is far better. Though on the desktop, you'd be better off not building a "highly graphic intensive, responsive layout" and instead adhering to the established norms.

by drcode 8y ago

aphextron 8y ago

My argument basically comes down to the alternatives. Have you tried them? Native iOS development was a nightmare without deep mobile expertise until React Native and the like came about. Windows/Linux/Mac cross-platform apps were in the same place before Electron. IT's far from perfect, but ask anyone today what they'd prefer to build an interface with and it's most like HTML/CSS. Especially for highly graphic intensive, responsive layouts, there's almost no competition really.

drcode 8y ago
Well, I think it would be pretty easy to take the best ideas from HTML/CSS and make something MUCH MUCH better that would be completely incompatible with these- See for instance subform (https://medium.com/subform https://medium.com/subform) The problem with this of course is that these alternative systems aren't widely supported, but at some point I expect one of the AFGAMs to publish and push one of these alternate layout systems and attempt to get higher adoption. (Amazon Facebook Google Apple Microsoft)
beojan 8y ago
> Native iOS development was a nightmare without deep mobile expertise until React Native and the like came about. Doing things well requires expertise. > Windows/Linux/Mac cross-platform apps were in the same place before Electron. Seriously?! Qt predates Electron and is a far superior solution. Of course, if you only know web development, your existing knowledge doesn't translate over easily, but the reverse is equally true. > but ask anyone today what they'd prefer to build an interface with and it's most like HTML/CSS Only if they are already experienced in web development. Otherwise, Qt Quick is much better, taking the positives from CSS, without the downsides of using a document format to layout a UI. > Especially for highly graphic intensive, responsive layouts, there's almost no competition really. Seriously, Qt Quick is far better. Though on the desktop, you'd be better off not building a "highly graphic intensive, responsive layout" and instead adhering to the established norms.