3 ms·
That’s not why. In my experience, applications accumulate interactivity over time. At some point, they hit a threshold where you (as a developer— not an end use
by christophilus 3y ago
That’s not why. In my experience, applications accumulate interactivity over time. At some point, they hit a threshold where you (as a developer— not an end user) wish you had gone with an interactive development model.
Also, for me, the statically typed, component-based approach to UI development that I get with Preact is my favorite way to build UIs. I’ve used Rails, PHP, ASP (the og), ASP.NET, ASP.NET MVC, along with old-school native windows development in VB6, C# Winforms, whatever garbage Microsoft came up with after Winforms (I forget what it was called), and probably other stacks I’m forgetting. VB6 and C# Winforms were the peak of my productivity. But for the web, the UI model of Preact is my favorite.
- davidmurdoch 3y agoStyling with WPF (the thing after winforms) was so confusing, at least from someone coming from CSS.
- christophilus 3y agoWPF. That was it. Yeah. It was terrible.
- zelphirkalt 3y agoI don't see why you cannot add interactivity later on. Frameworks like VueJS provide an easy way to deliver interactive widgets on a subset of rendered pages of a traditional website. If you need an API on the backend, you need to write that API one way or another anyway. This way people who are just looking for some information on a website can go visit, get, and leave, without having to enable intrusive JS blobs, while those in for the interative things on the website can get their preferred experience as well. Instead many websites are developed with only the second group in mind, often intentionally forcing you to run their code on your computer, or not delivering useful information at all.