4 ms·

> how we are trying to make "Application UIs" out of what was meant to be a "Document description framework" We try, we can, and we do. Successfully. > "You w

by thiht 4y ago

> how we are trying to make "Application UIs" out of what was meant to be a "Document description framework" We try, we can, and we do. Successfully. > "You want a button? you have to style a div to get what you want". "You want to center an element vertically? You have to use a table. You have to use these css hacks." "You want to debug the component you've written? Enjoy diving through the div soup". Honestly I don’t think you’re entitled to an opinion on this given you obviously haven’t done anything web related in the last 20 years. I mean, even <button> was there from the beginning. Flexbox layout itself is almost 10 years old now. CSS hacks are mostly unheard of since the death of Internet Explorer 9.

saidinesh5 4y ago
> We try, we can, and we do. Successfully. My point is not that you can't do it. It is about what kind of abstractions people have hacked past to beat a document into behaving like an application. That's why I think every couple of years people keep reinventing the wheel to accomplish the same basic things. JQuery-Ui, Sencha, Angular, React, Vue, Svelte etc... Inline styling was a sin. Then it's the recommended practise. Not even sure what's hip these days in what framework.There is a reason why your actual application abstractions get lost when you inspect an element in developer tools. I'm well aware of button tags and i am also aware of the reasons why people styled div and anchor elements to behave like buttons in the codebases I've dealt with. They had good reasons why they did those things the way they did. If you reread my above comment, You'd see how I've also mentioned the tradeoffs of actually using proper ui/application development libraries and frameworks to make "Web Applications". But if one is making an electron application, search engine discoverability and content addressability bring absolutely nothing to the table and one might as well use a more appropriate framework.
int_19h 4y ago
Successfully for whom? As a user, I find that when a desktop app is using a web stack like Electron, that's one of the best predictors for poor and inconsistent UX.

by thiht 4y ago

saidinesh5 4y ago

> We try, we can, and we do. Successfully. My point is not that you can't do it. It is about what kind of abstractions people have hacked past to beat a document into behaving like an application. That's why I think every couple of years people keep reinventing the wheel to accomplish the same basic things. JQuery-Ui, Sencha, Angular, React, Vue, Svelte etc... Inline styling was a sin. Then it's the recommended practise. Not even sure what's hip these days in what framework.There is a reason why your actual application abstractions get lost when you inspect an element in developer tools. I'm well aware of button tags and i am also aware of the reasons why people styled div and anchor elements to behave like buttons in the codebases I've dealt with. They had good reasons why they did those things the way they did. If you reread my above comment, You'd see how I've also mentioned the tradeoffs of actually using proper ui/application development libraries and frameworks to make "Web Applications". But if one is making an electron application, search engine discoverability and content addressability bring absolutely nothing to the table and one might as well use a more appropriate framework.

int_19h 4y ago

Successfully for whom? As a user, I find that when a desktop app is using a web stack like Electron, that's one of the best predictors for poor and inconsistent UX.