3 ms·

Being limited to highly abstracted libraries leads to worse UI because you have to shoehorn your app into the limited set of forms the library allows you to exp

Being limited to highly abstracted libraries leads to worse UI because you have to shoehorn your app into the limited set of forms the library allows you to express. If you just want some boilerplate UI in a hurry, this is fine (it’s actually better) but it sets an upper bound for how good the UI can ever be and that’s a problem for serious professionals. Of course most UI is horrible but that’s true no matter what framework you give them. There’s always somebody using checkboxes as radio buttons.

Kuinox 4y ago
Funny how this argument was opposed against libraries in the early days of programming.
- jahewson 4y ago
  I think it’s an argument for small, composable libraries. Think Go’s std instead of Java’s Spring.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    UI components can be small, and customizable enough to do anything. The HTML is an excellent exemple at that. You are never "limited" by highly abstracted librairies since at any moment, you can write your fully customized one. And no, a customized components is not immediately better. Good Library UI components have, i18n, accessibility, and good mobile UX. The comment "I can do a decent calendar in react in a few minutes" shows exactly this: it's infuriating to use on mobile.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      The web is exactly a bad argument, it composes terribly. You can make n*m divs for the days for a calendar widget, it won’t be recognized as a date selector. While swing, or even earlier GUI iterations realized that inheritance is a very sane model for GUI frameworks.
      - Kuinox 4y ago
        You know you can inherit the HTML date picker right? ... right ?
        ulimn 4y ago
        I actually don't know what you mean. Can you please tell me?
        Kuinox 4y ago
        Webcomponents allow inheriting html built in elements. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_custom_elements https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/... > Customized built-in elements inherit from basic HTML elements.
        ulimn 4y ago
        Thanks. I always wanted to look into web components, sounds interesting.

Kuinox 4y ago

Funny how this argument was opposed against libraries in the early days of programming.

jahewson 4y ago
I think it’s an argument for small, composable libraries. Think Go’s std instead of Java’s Spring.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Kuinox 4y ago
  UI components can be small, and customizable enough to do anything. The HTML is an excellent exemple at that. You are never "limited" by highly abstracted librairies since at any moment, you can write your fully customized one. And no, a customized components is not immediately better. Good Library UI components have, i18n, accessibility, and good mobile UX. The comment "I can do a decent calendar in react in a few minutes" shows exactly this: it's infuriating to use on mobile.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    The web is exactly a bad argument, it composes terribly. You can make n*m divs for the days for a calendar widget, it won’t be recognized as a date selector. While swing, or even earlier GUI iterations realized that inheritance is a very sane model for GUI frameworks.
    - Kuinox 4y ago
      You know you can inherit the HTML date picker right? ... right ?
      - ulimn 4y ago
        I actually don't know what you mean. Can you please tell me?
        Kuinox 4y ago
        Webcomponents allow inheriting html built in elements. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_custom_elements https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/... > Customized built-in elements inherit from basic HTML elements.
        ulimn 4y ago
        Thanks. I always wanted to look into web components, sounds interesting.