4 ms·

Writing HTML by hand is pretty dubious advice (slightly impractical but doable, so not necessarily something to rule out on those grounds, but the factor that d

Writing HTML by hand is pretty dubious advice (slightly impractical but doable, so not necessarily something to rule out on those grounds, but the factor that dominates in deciding whether or not to do it comes down negligible benefit). But writing CSS and JS by hand is both way more practical than people think, and the gains are real.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
If you're not a fan of hand rolled HTML, then what do you think of JSX?
- jen729w 5y ago
  If HTML allowed you to trivially import reuseable components like you can with JSX it’d be killer. That’s the one thing that stops me writing my site by hand. I’m looking at Astro for my site’s re-write as it seems to find a happy medium here.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >If HTML allowed you to trivially import reuseable components like you can with JSX Sounds like WebComponents. >I'm looking at Astro... Never heard of it and just gave it a quick glance. Hadn't heard of the "islands architecture" it implements either, although it is similar to some familiar concepts. In fact, it reminds me of the way we built sites years ago (pre-AJAX even), when static HTML was just delivered by the server and there was little-to-no JS involved, save for some effects. And, that's the funny thing: in spite of all the myriad paths and paradigms, we seem to be coming full circle. It's funny in 2021 to see a "new" project advocating for a "new" approach that is essentially "SSR static HTML with minimal client JS FTW!"
    - jen729w 5y ago
      > Sounds like WebComponents. Interesting. I’ll check it out. Update: checked it out. Shame that `Getting Started` > `Web Components` = 404.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction works for me. WebComponents have been discussed for a while. They were just a dream not too long ago, and I'm not sure what their usability is right now. So, word of warning that I'm not advocating for or against their use at this point. Just mentioning that the description you gave previously reminded me of WebComponents.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

If you're not a fan of hand rolled HTML, then what do you think of JSX?

jen729w 5y ago
If HTML allowed you to trivially import reuseable components like you can with JSX it’d be killer. That’s the one thing that stops me writing my site by hand. I’m looking at Astro for my site’s re-write as it seems to find a happy medium here.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >If HTML allowed you to trivially import reuseable components like you can with JSX Sounds like WebComponents. >I'm looking at Astro... Never heard of it and just gave it a quick glance. Hadn't heard of the "islands architecture" it implements either, although it is similar to some familiar concepts. In fact, it reminds me of the way we built sites years ago (pre-AJAX even), when static HTML was just delivered by the server and there was little-to-no JS involved, save for some effects. And, that's the funny thing: in spite of all the myriad paths and paradigms, we seem to be coming full circle. It's funny in 2021 to see a "new" project advocating for a "new" approach that is essentially "SSR static HTML with minimal client JS FTW!"
  - jen729w 5y ago
    > Sounds like WebComponents. Interesting. I’ll check it out. Update: checked it out. Shame that `Getting Started` > `Web Components` = 404.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction works for me. WebComponents have been discussed for a while. They were just a dream not too long ago, and I'm not sure what their usability is right now. So, word of warning that I'm not advocating for or against their use at this point. Just mentioning that the description you gave previously reminded me of WebComponents.