dmitriid

41 ms·

331.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Maybe because those frameworks don't want to be rewritten from scratch? The absolute vast majority of new frameworks don't use web components as the foundation. Perhaps instead of burying their heads in the sand people pushin
332.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> I'm curious what the problems are with web components that you see? Bitesized explanation from Rich Harris, the author of Svelte: https://twitter.com/Rich_Harris/status/1198332398561353728 It's from
333.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> everyone else supports them That's what I said: At best they can consume/embed them and perhaps compile to them. > regardless if they are their foundation or not. And the fact that they are not forming the foundation of th
334.
by dmitriid 4y ago
React is compatible to its first version :) > The good news is that the tooling around the Web components is evolving You mean web components are growing their own frameworks at the same pace :) With new APIs and breaking changes In 12 y
335.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Realistically, there's almost no community that is impressed with having to deal with Web Components. In this discussion I keep reiterating: there are multiple reasons why none of the major frameworks and very few of the new frameworks
336.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> but it is still better than being in a continuous churn of UI frameworks. Is there a continuous churn? React is 10 years this year. Vue is 9 years. Angular which feels positively ancient is 7 years (if we only count Angular 2.x). Yes,
337.
by dmitriid 4y ago
My hunch is that the author of the article wouldn't like these shortcuts either :)
338.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> At least it shows that the technology is both scalable and battle-tested. So are all other technologies used on the web sites. It still doesn't make it good . You keep pretending that if something is used somewhere means it'
339.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Can you explain how open-ui solves the problem? It doesn't solve the problem, but would solve the problem if it was started 10 or 20 years ago. This is what needed in the browser: an actual properly specified comprehensive set of
340.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Is it just me or has the underlying purpose and value of “cascading” in CSS been lost within these abstractions. For app-like websites CSS cascade offers little and is often harmful as an innocent change to a top layer will unpredictab
341.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Tamagui actually does solve all four of the mentioned problems in the article. How? The very first example in Tamagui docs is this: export const Circle = styled(Stack, { backgroundColor: '$background', color: &#x2
342.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> we can't bear to work with native events, manage the dom, or build reactivity with proxies or subjects I mean, you can do all that. And either spend your time writing tons of boilerplate code, or reinventing half of those framewor
343.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> A UI library for React, Vue, Svelte, Solid, whatever... Imagine being able to have a component library that works with any of them (or none of them). You don't need web components for that. You need https://open-ui.org
344.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Examine html source of such sites as Just because someone uses a technology, doesn't mean it's good. I could point to plenty of sites still using first versions of Angular. Is it workable? Yes. Is it good? Also, I'd skip
345.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Everyone (me included) is discussing web components, and no one is discussing the contents of the site itself: - extremely light on content - goes out of its way to not present anything more complex than non-functional pieces of code or s
346.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> faster than the bikeshedding commissars from goog and aapl can agree on whether "open" or "closed" should be the default for attaching a shadow DOM Because very few of the people developing web standards are web dev
347.
by dmitriid 4y ago
That marketing copy ugh. "New! Powerful!" It's neither "Standard JS so it works where HTML works" says a lot about your experts
348.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Web components have their place but they're no panacea and the ecosystem is still pretty young. And yet wc proponents keep pushing them as if they were panacea. And "ecosystems is young" is a funny statement for somethin
349.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Svelte will remove compiling to web components into a plugin. In general, none of the major frameworks, and very few of the new frameworks use web components as a foundation for their functionality for many extensively described reasons tha
350.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> There is big money in storing original film prints. There are a ton of commercial warehouses (mostly in/near Los Angeles) that specializes in such things. Until the studio decides to, you know, just destroy them or they are destro
351.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> It did have some good tooling for creatives at least, but there are plenty of really good modern web tools with similar capabilities There really aren't. Because the web can't even do animations properly. And Flash had a fast
352.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> not even mentioning the amounts of JS and the impact of it on performance The only reason it performed better is because Google would preload over 1MB of Javascript needed to run AMP on its search page. A cold start for AMP was barely
353.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Bootstrap dropdowns: - don't follow platform conventions (don't trigger the actual system dropdowns with actual expected behavior) - get cutoff by browser chrome when page is zoomed in (because you can't control that behavior
354.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> web components got rolled back Unfortunately, they haven't. Google especially pushes them at every opportunity, and they are poisoning the web. E.g. Scoped CSS that covers about 80% of what web components are used for cannot progr
355.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Notably, the anti-web mob almost never bothers to articulate why it is they think the web is bad at all! They articulate it all the times. Unfortunately "sponges" with their "reverberations of yore" are too enamoure
356.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> However the polish you are used to on dropdowns Emphatically no. The absolute vast majority of those "polished dropdowns" are horrible to use, and break all possible platform conventions (for example, not accessible or usable
357.
by dmitriid 4y ago
Google's AMP project was Google's weapon against Facebook's instant news or whatever it was called. It had nothing to do with a quest for better performance. It had everything to do with ad impressions.
358.
by dmitriid 4y ago
The core of the web is a system to display a page of static page with one or two images in a single rendering pass. SPAs etc. are insanely complicated and complex attempts to bend this into something it's not, and can never be. The rea
359.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> websites are a relatively small part of it which is only getting attention because this part is the one that works remotely and thus affects USA companies. On top of that there's USA itself. Which said "if an American company
360.
by dmitriid 4y ago
> but one of the more impressive things about the ad ecosystem is that it works without advertisers and publishers trusting each other. I can sell the space on my site and advertisers don't need to figure out how much to trust me in

More ›