5 ms·
Are we trying to reinvent web development? Last few years have been wild. We abandoned HTML CSS and JS websites that used to work just fine and ran after fronte
by vivzkestrel 2y ago
Are we trying to reinvent web development? Last few years have been wild. We abandoned HTML CSS and JS websites that used to work just fine and ran after frontend component frameworks and now the circle is getting completed by building tools and extensions we had 20 yrs ago
- asdf000333 2y agoI'm not really a frontend dev, but React (w/ JSX, and w/o Redux or whatever) is the only web thing I've ever used that made sense. Everything else like CSS, Angular, and jquery made me go "wtf."
- bethemoly 2y agoI love this discussion -- it provides interesting perspective on the history, especially for me as a person who is learning web development.
- urin 2y agoThere are complex reasons behind my development of this. To be honest, I don’t think the editing functionality of this tool is particularly useful. I believe the real-time preview and element selection features are the ones that offer broader utility. I am considering making the editing feature disabled by default and allowing it to be enabled through settings in the future.
- kak3a 2y agoBring FrontPage back! ;)
- pjerem 2y agoI don’t think it was meant to criticize your work :) It’s just fun to see that we (here : you) are reinventing tools that everyone used 20 or 30 years ago. I remember making my first websites in Dreamweaver. I remember it being hated by "pro" developers but this plus an FTP client (which was integrated IIRC) was enough for teenager me to be live on the internet.
- a57721 2y agoThe nostalgia hit me, I remember before Dreamweaver, there was Netscape Composer, W3C Amaya, and similar software.
- darreninthenet 2y agoHow is Dreamweaver these days?
- captn3m0 2y agopart of creative cloud, $20/mo. Last update May 2024 https://helpx.adobe.com/dreamweaver/using/whats-new.html https://helpx.adobe.com/dreamweaver/using/whats-new.html
- hashtag-til 2y agoI came here to comment about Macromedia Dreamweaver (at the time I used it). It was an ok software for the time. Acceptable WYSIWYG.
- phero_cnstrcts 2y agoTailwind is reviving the style attribute.
- 1propionyl 2y agoI've taken the next step and written my own tool that lets me put all my Tailwind attributes in a separate file grouped by element selectors. :-)
- uxamanda 2y agoDo you have a demo of this? Sounds cool
- pjmlp 2y agoAnd what is more crazy, acting as if they are something new, instead of something that is 20 years old.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- robertlagrant 2y agoNo one's doing this, or at least not in the way you're implying.
- stevage 2y ago>We abandoned HTML CSS and JS websites that used to work just fine Hmm. Have you actually done much web development in the last 10 years? Building websites with raw HTML, CSS and JS 10 years ago was very much not "just fine". There's a reason frameworks were invented.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoWhat do you consider "not fine" about websites written in "just" html, CSS, and js?
- asdf000333 2y agomainly the CSS
- 0xFACEFEED 2y ago1) Rats nest of non-declarative JavaScript. 2) Rats nest of JavaScript callbacks. 3) Overlapping stylesheets with !important everywhere. 4) Elements used for style not their semantic purpose (<b>, <strong>) 5) Subtle and not-so-subtle browser compatibility issues.
- wyclif 2y agoAlso: using JS for things where HTML and CSS would have been sufficient, creating some of the issues above.
- mediumsmart 2y agothis ^ - and if js at all, then only using a subset which passes jslint.com without any errors or warnings. that the score of any site should be 100 100 100 100 1.1s max paint (mobile) 0ms block 0.0xx max shift A+ headers 0 errors and 0 contrast errors webaim goes without saying of course
- bugtodiffer 2y ago5) is the only valid reason, the rest has comparable alternative shitty things when using whatever framework
- netdevnet 2y agoLet's be honest. Those old HTML+CSS+JS didn't have the interaction levels of modern applications. And jQuery was great until you reached a level of complexity after which it became jquery Bolognese. There are 2 main challenges: state and reusing pieces of html. Both of these are much harder in modern applications due to their complexity. Try reusing a piece of HTML using HTML+CSS+JS alone (no Node or back-end tools allowed). Try keeping state synced across a modern application without using state management libraries.
- jeroenhd 2y agoMost "applications" I visit in my browser have no business being an application. The "clear search history" button in my start menu has no business loading a React environment with three redirects either. Some web applications need a boatload of frontend stuff to make them usable, but I rarely encounter websites that warrant such overkill. A payslip/email subscription/car rental website with a profile page and maybe three forms I can possibly need to submit doesn't need to be a fully interactive application with loading bars and offline support, leave that stuff for the websites I visit more than once a month. At this point React/Vue/Svelte devs are probably cheaper to hire than basic JS devs, but technology wise the amount of Javascript my browser needs to load for the most basic interactions is mind-boggling. More than the "this meeting could've been an email" meetings, I run into "this web application could've been a POST request" web pages.
- worewood 2y agoI have to second this, 100%. Not everybody is developing the next Canva or the next Google Docs. To me it sounds like people trying to justify that what they do has some higher value than what it really does.
- gavmor 2y agoNah, I went from jquery to Backbone, Angular, and React. I don't miss jquery, and I like the functional/declarative APIs of JSX. It's a lot like just writing HTML, and CSS, and I still write plenty of JS as pure functions or plain objects, and they're lovely to test. I don't really see the purpose of the OP when I have vite and subsecond rerenders.