4 ms·
My main gripe with Shadcn and, well, most UI libraries nowadays, is that they are reinventing the wheel for like a thousandth time. I’m trying out Ark UI on a
by notpushkin 3mo ago
My main gripe with Shadcn and, well, most UI libraries nowadays, is that they are reinventing the wheel for like a thousandth time.
I’m trying out Ark UI on a side project. They do have some genuinely useful components, like tags input: https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/tags-input https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/tags-input
They have a tabs/“segment group” component with a nice animated active element indicator which would probably be tricky to implement: https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/segment-group https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/segment-group
And then they also have stuff like overcomplicated “click to copy” button and a <details> reimplementation: https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/clipboard https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/clipboard, https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/collapsible https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/collapsible
All with a verbose markup that renders as a div soup.
- gjvc 3mo ago[flagged]
- Griffinsauce 3mo agoI think this is really an indictment of the platform. Much more stuff should be covered by the browser.
- gjvc 3mo agothis is actually true; the web was done so terribly to begin with on day one, that we have been paying the price of compatibility thereto ever since.
- skydhash 3mo agoThe web was for hyperlinked documents (and forms?). And it’s still does the job beautifully. It was never an UI toolkit.
- notpushkin 3mo agoI vote we bring back <marquee> next: https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/marquee https://ark-ui.com/docs/components/marquee