5 ms·

There's another very good reason to make a claim of "self evidence" besides not having any good arguments, which is if the proposition actually is self-evident

by nardi 6y ago

There's another very good reason to make a claim of "self evidence" besides not having any good arguments, which is if the proposition actually is self-evident to the target audience, and you want to focus on something else rather than dive into a long justification for the proposition. I think the author is justified in saying that designing with components in web development has become self-evidently better than not. All new web frameworks are component-based. Web Components were added to HTML. Pretty much all web developers agree on this. Are you a web developer? Do you disagree that the benefits of components in web programming are self-evident? If so, that is definitely surprising to me, and probably to the author.

wtf_srsly 6y ago
-
- monsieurbanana 6y ago
  This is only discussing about whether the premise that components is the right abstraction is self-evident. That's all, nobody else in this particular thread said anything about whether that means inline styles is the way to go. You might want to post your question to the author of the blog post, or as a top-level question.
FreeHugs 6y ago
I think we should spend a minute on what is meant with "components" in the article. Would you say that this very site - Hacker News - is using this type of "components"?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  The latest possible start date for components on the web was when PHP/fi (or whatever it was called) allowed you to ```include``` other files. Realistically, people were probably doing the same with perl scripts before that. And any definition of component is going to find it hard to exclude standard html elements, other than by specifying that it's users being able to define new ones, and not just browser vendors. Incidentally, CSS was the original implementations of user-defined components: it allows defining certain behaviours once, for a "class" or group of similar elements, then using it repeatedly.
  - j-krieger 6y ago
    I remember when we loaded xml into a buffer in c and replaced template tags with search and replace.
  - FreeHugs 6y ago
    I don't think that is the type of "component" the author means when he writes about a "component world". He constantly talks about his argument applies to "modern web apps". I don't have the feeling that what he really means with "Inline CSS works better in a component world" is "Inline CSS is the better choice since the 90s".
- nardi 6y ago
  This definitely leads me to believe that you don't have much experience with modern web frameworks. The meaning of "component" in modern web development is pretty consistent. You can think of a component as a custom HTML element (though they can be much more complex than built-in HTML elements). In fact, if you are using HTML Web Components, then your component literally is a custom HTML element. But the metaphor works even when generating HTML server-side: If you can reference a piece of UI by name, and pass it attributes, and it packages up some HTML/CSS/JavaScript in a reusable fashion, then it's a component. Your question is slightly nonsensical, because components are not a design language, and it's not something you can see by looking at a rendered web page. To know whether Hacker News is using components, I would need to look at the source code, because components are a programming paradigm. If you're asking me to comb through HN's JavaScript to see if they use that paradigm, well, no thank you.
  - FreeHugs 6y ago
    This definitely leads me to believe that you don't have much experience with modern web frameworks Here we go again. It would have suited the discussion even better if you said "it is definitely self evident".
    - nardi 6y ago
      But I explained why it led me to believe that. You're just...not gonna respond to any of my argument...are you?
- j-krieger 6y ago
  Yes! A comment box is a component. The tree view you look at comments in are components. Usernames and scores are component. A shared „link“ on the frontpage is a component. HN is not rendered on the client side, but its backend uses these „components“ via a templating framework. Components are just templates for the frontend.

by nardi 6y ago

wtf_srsly 6y ago

monsieurbanana 6y ago
This is only discussing about whether the premise that components is the right abstraction is self-evident. That's all, nobody else in this particular thread said anything about whether that means inline styles is the way to go. You might want to post your question to the author of the blog post, or as a top-level question.

FreeHugs 6y ago

I think we should spend a minute on what is meant with "components" in the article. Would you say that this very site - Hacker News - is using this type of "components"?

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
The latest possible start date for components on the web was when PHP/fi (or whatever it was called) allowed you to ```include``` other files. Realistically, people were probably doing the same with perl scripts before that. And any definition of component is going to find it hard to exclude standard html elements, other than by specifying that it's users being able to define new ones, and not just browser vendors. Incidentally, CSS was the original implementations of user-defined components: it allows defining certain behaviours once, for a "class" or group of similar elements, then using it repeatedly.
- j-krieger 6y ago
  I remember when we loaded xml into a buffer in c and replaced template tags with search and replace.
- FreeHugs 6y ago
  I don't think that is the type of "component" the author means when he writes about a "component world". He constantly talks about his argument applies to "modern web apps". I don't have the feeling that what he really means with "Inline CSS works better in a component world" is "Inline CSS is the better choice since the 90s".
nardi 6y ago
This definitely leads me to believe that you don't have much experience with modern web frameworks. The meaning of "component" in modern web development is pretty consistent. You can think of a component as a custom HTML element (though they can be much more complex than built-in HTML elements). In fact, if you are using HTML Web Components, then your component literally is a custom HTML element. But the metaphor works even when generating HTML server-side: If you can reference a piece of UI by name, and pass it attributes, and it packages up some HTML/CSS/JavaScript in a reusable fashion, then it's a component. Your question is slightly nonsensical, because components are not a design language, and it's not something you can see by looking at a rendered web page. To know whether Hacker News is using components, I would need to look at the source code, because components are a programming paradigm. If you're asking me to comb through HN's JavaScript to see if they use that paradigm, well, no thank you.
- FreeHugs 6y ago
  This definitely leads me to believe that you don't have much experience with modern web frameworks Here we go again. It would have suited the discussion even better if you said "it is definitely self evident".
  - nardi 6y ago
    But I explained why it led me to believe that. You're just...not gonna respond to any of my argument...are you?
j-krieger 6y ago
Yes! A comment box is a component. The tree view you look at comments in are components. Usernames and scores are component. A shared „link“ on the frontpage is a component. HN is not rendered on the client side, but its backend uses these „components“ via a templating framework. Components are just templates for the frontend.