3 ms·
> I haven't figured out what the right direction is yet, short of going back to the drawing board with HTML. That's almost certainly what's needed. The fundam
by idontpost 8y ago
> I haven't figured out what the right direction is yet, short of going back to the drawing board with HTML.
That's almost certainly what's needed. The fundamental structure of the HTML-CSS-JS triad is the problem that all this complexity tries to abstract around.
Separation of concerns is only good if you're separating the right concerns. Back when web pages were really PAGES (ie documents), the Content-Styling-Interactivity division made sense. But now that web pages are applications that division makes very little sense.
All the different solutions represent different approaches to redefining the separation of concerns, but what they all agree on is that Content-Styling-Interactivity is the wrong separation.
- chubot 8y agoThere are some sites that are applications, and there are some sites that are documents. I'll go as far as to say that will never change. Applications are only one part of the web; the other parts matter too. I care more about reading documents on the web, and I'm glad it has a nice simple way of presenting them (HTML) and styling them (CSS). CSS works OK as long as you aren't trying to control things pixel-for-pixel, which is not what it's meant for. It obviously could be better, but the problem is not easy by any means.
- idontpost 8y ago>There are some sites that are applications, and there are some sites that are documents. >I'll go as far as to say that will never change. Applications are only one part of the web; the other parts matter too. That's true, but it's also not the problem domain. No one is having trouble creating document websites on the internet. That problem is, more or less, solved to the point that almost anyone with no technical background can do it. Application-type sites are where all the pain points lie.