4 ms·

I've been a CodePen user since the very early days. Have always loved the platform. I hate to be negative, but I'm honestly not a fan of the 2.0 release. What I

I've been a CodePen user since the very early days. Have always loved the platform. I hate to be negative, but I'm honestly not a fan of the 2.0 release. What I loved about CodePen was just being able to try out something really quick and simple. But the new interface makes me feel more like I'm building a website inside of a website.

gkoberger 2mo ago
That's the hard part about tools like this. They're too simple to be used for anything important, and as soon as the creator follows that path you end up in a situation where it's too simple for anything complex and too complex for anything simple. Amazing platforms like Glitch ran into this problem. (Some did pull it off! Like how Vercel built a kingdom out of `now`.)
- bodhi_mind 2mo ago
  Solvable with reasonable defaults and putting most things behind an advanced section?
  - micromacrofoot 2mo ago
    no, it's just not solvable... you can only mitigate anything hosted free will inevitably be abused by scammers, you need constant vigilance just to stay a step ahead
    - TimTheTinker 2mo ago
      > it's just not solvable Watch out, good hackers find those words incredibly motivating.
      - micromacrofoot 2mo ago
        even bad hackers know it's true
- bubblebeard 2mo ago
  The more complex the more fragile. The simpler the solution the more robust. This, I feel, is an overall truth to software development. And simpler solutions, as far as I know, are usually the more useful ones.
  - gkoberger 2mo ago
    Not necessarily! Linux is incredibly complex. AWS is incredibly complex. Next is incredibly complex. GitHub is incredibly complex. We need simple tools and we need complex tools. It's the middle ground that's hard to navigate.
    - malfist 2mo ago
      When we're lucky, that complexity is mostly locked behind abstraction and you only occasionally have to care. Of course those you usually discover at 3AM on a Saturday
      - NamlchakKhandro 2mo ago
        Repost with simplified English please
    - abustamam 2mo ago
      > GitHub is incredibly complex I'm reading this a day after GitHub had a day-long outage on Actions. https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime/br0l2tvcx85d https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime/br0l2tvcx85d
  - k3liutZu 2mo ago
    There's complex and complicated. I think we can have complex things, but they can be simple (to use, to understand, to manage). But it is really hard to make a complex thing simple. The straightforward way is to make it complicated, and most items remain that way.
echelon 2mo ago
I suspect they're doing this because of AI. Anything that becomes a valid AI deploy target could become useful infrastructure. The rate of humans testing things in a CodePen will slowly fall off, similar to Stack Overflow. The rate of AI models deploying to CodePen 2.0 will pick up significantly. In some number of years, the amount of code written per month by machines will dwarf all code written by humans from 1957 - 2027. In that world, CodePen 2.0 is valuable. CodePen not so much.
- agilek 2mo ago
  Interesting take. Makes a lot of sense thinking of it. No "just" persuade agents CodePen is the best way to deploy their web creations ;)
OuterVale 2mo ago
This is something they're certainly aware of as they kept the old style available (https://codepen.io/pen https://codepen.io/pen) and created a tutorial on how to make 2.0 work like the old version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMxXwupwURQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMxXwupwURQ
zeroq 2mo ago
A textbook definition of "feature creep". I have absolutely no idea if CodePen is feeling pressure from their shareholders or want to cook before the IPO, but I often wonder why Spotify needs 3,000 [1] developers working full time on a streaming app. 4 weeks ago there was a thread about Spotify making over 4,000 production releases a day (or 10 in 10 minutes in another comment in that thread). WinAmp has been dead for centuries but it's still a perfectly valid player, foobar is being developed by a single dev. Of course I do understand that these people have a lot of auxilary tasks at hand, and "music player" is just a small component of the whole system, but still, it feels bizarre to think you need such an army to maintain a working app. I love cool features as much as the next guy, but I'm also a fan of coherent products that knows their identity. [1] the number might be inaccurate but that's beside the point
- albedoa 2mo ago
  > or want to cook before the IPO What IPO is that?
amelius 2mo ago
Codepen was indeed nice for quick and simple experiments, but LLMs take away the need for that.
- dspillett 2mo ago
  Some people still want to learn instead of an LLM doing things for them, if only do we can verify the output of the LLM.
filearts 2mo ago
If you want to go back to a simpler editing experience, https://plnkr.co/edit/?preview https://plnkr.co/edit/?preview might just do the trick for you. Hasn't changed in literally years. Nowhere near the polish or flair you see from legends like Chris Coyier though.
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  https://htmledit.squarefree.com https://htmledit.squarefree.com hasn't changed in over two decades.
vanderZwan 2mo ago
This is why I switched to jsgist[0] years ago and haven't looked back since. It's very sparse, but it has also avoided feature creep as a result, and since the output is stored as a gist on my GH account I don't have to worry about losing it if the site ever goes down either. (also, the sister site jsbenchit[1] has been one of the more reliable microbenchmarking tools among the various sites I've tried - most end up triggering deopts or introducing "noise" in a way that makes the output less reliable) [0] https://jsgist.org/ https://jsgist.org/ [1] https://jsbenchit.org/ https://jsbenchit.org/
addedGone 2mo ago
Codepen imo ruined their product the moment they forced sign-up to view and explore, it also doesn't protect anything anyway seeing that they are all available as bulk archives on some forums.

gkoberger 2mo ago

That's the hard part about tools like this. They're too simple to be used for anything important, and as soon as the creator follows that path you end up in a situation where it's too simple for anything complex and too complex for anything simple. Amazing platforms like Glitch ran into this problem. (Some did pull it off! Like how Vercel built a kingdom out of `now`.)

bodhi_mind 2mo ago
Solvable with reasonable defaults and putting most things behind an advanced section?
- micromacrofoot 2mo ago
  no, it's just not solvable... you can only mitigate anything hosted free will inevitably be abused by scammers, you need constant vigilance just to stay a step ahead
  - TimTheTinker 2mo ago
    > it's just not solvable Watch out, good hackers find those words incredibly motivating.
    - micromacrofoot 2mo ago
      even bad hackers know it's true
bubblebeard 2mo ago
The more complex the more fragile. The simpler the solution the more robust. This, I feel, is an overall truth to software development. And simpler solutions, as far as I know, are usually the more useful ones.
- gkoberger 2mo ago
  Not necessarily! Linux is incredibly complex. AWS is incredibly complex. Next is incredibly complex. GitHub is incredibly complex. We need simple tools and we need complex tools. It's the middle ground that's hard to navigate.
  - malfist 2mo ago
    When we're lucky, that complexity is mostly locked behind abstraction and you only occasionally have to care. Of course those you usually discover at 3AM on a Saturday
    - NamlchakKhandro 2mo ago
      Repost with simplified English please
  - abustamam 2mo ago
    > GitHub is incredibly complex I'm reading this a day after GitHub had a day-long outage on Actions. https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime/br0l2tvcx85d https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime/br0l2tvcx85d
- k3liutZu 2mo ago
  There's complex and complicated. I think we can have complex things, but they can be simple (to use, to understand, to manage). But it is really hard to make a complex thing simple. The straightforward way is to make it complicated, and most items remain that way.

echelon 2mo ago

I suspect they're doing this because of AI. Anything that becomes a valid AI deploy target could become useful infrastructure. The rate of humans testing things in a CodePen will slowly fall off, similar to Stack Overflow. The rate of AI models deploying to CodePen 2.0 will pick up significantly. In some number of years, the amount of code written per month by machines will dwarf all code written by humans from 1957 - 2027. In that world, CodePen 2.0 is valuable. CodePen not so much.

agilek 2mo ago
Interesting take. Makes a lot of sense thinking of it. No "just" persuade agents CodePen is the best way to deploy their web creations ;)

OuterVale 2mo ago

This is something they're certainly aware of as they kept the old style available (https://codepen.io/pen https://codepen.io/pen) and created a tutorial on how to make 2.0 work like the old version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMxXwupwURQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMxXwupwURQ

zeroq 2mo ago

A textbook definition of "feature creep". I have absolutely no idea if CodePen is feeling pressure from their shareholders or want to cook before the IPO, but I often wonder why Spotify needs 3,000 [1] developers working full time on a streaming app. 4 weeks ago there was a thread about Spotify making over 4,000 production releases a day (or 10 in 10 minutes in another comment in that thread). WinAmp has been dead for centuries but it's still a perfectly valid player, foobar is being developed by a single dev. Of course I do understand that these people have a lot of auxilary tasks at hand, and "music player" is just a small component of the whole system, but still, it feels bizarre to think you need such an army to maintain a working app. I love cool features as much as the next guy, but I'm also a fan of coherent products that knows their identity. [1] the number might be inaccurate but that's beside the point

albedoa 2mo ago
> or want to cook before the IPO What IPO is that?

amelius 2mo ago

Codepen was indeed nice for quick and simple experiments, but LLMs take away the need for that.

dspillett 2mo ago
Some people still want to learn instead of an LLM doing things for them, if only do we can verify the output of the LLM.

filearts 2mo ago

If you want to go back to a simpler editing experience, https://plnkr.co/edit/?preview https://plnkr.co/edit/?preview might just do the trick for you. Hasn't changed in literally years. Nowhere near the polish or flair you see from legends like Chris Coyier though.

LoganDark 2mo ago
https://htmledit.squarefree.com https://htmledit.squarefree.com hasn't changed in over two decades.

vanderZwan 2mo ago

This is why I switched to jsgist[0] years ago and haven't looked back since. It's very sparse, but it has also avoided feature creep as a result, and since the output is stored as a gist on my GH account I don't have to worry about losing it if the site ever goes down either. (also, the sister site jsbenchit[1] has been one of the more reliable microbenchmarking tools among the various sites I've tried - most end up triggering deopts or introducing "noise" in a way that makes the output less reliable) [0] https://jsgist.org/ https://jsgist.org/ [1] https://jsbenchit.org/ https://jsbenchit.org/

addedGone 2mo ago

Codepen imo ruined their product the moment they forced sign-up to view and explore, it also doesn't protect anything anyway seeing that they are all available as bulk archives on some forums.