TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

In web design, everything easy is hard again

459 pointsby josephscottover 7 years ago

41 comments

codingdaveover 7 years ago
There is a difference between web design and web application development. If you are a designer making brochure sites for small business, you don&#x27;t need the modern frameworks and toolkits, and you are over-engineering it if you use them.<p>Everyone needs to take a step back and ask why they are building a web site in the first place. My local hair salon really just needs a brochure, and maybe a scheduling widget. A doctors office would need to add on a payment system. Both of which can be achieved by pulling in a script to use a 3rd party solution, while the core web site can remain plain, static HTML... done in Notepad, if you want to get really simple.<p>When you step up to needing some actual functionality, there still is a line in the sand where a few PHP scripts will do the job, and can just be pushed up to a shared web host.<p>When you cross that line, THEN you need modern tools. And many sites will need to go there. But a boutique design firm should be able to go a long way without, and probably could just hire some devs if they do land a project large and complex enough to need that level of code.<p>Just because you can go complex doesn&#x27;t mean you should.
评论 #16347720 未加载
评论 #16347681 未加载
评论 #16347663 未加载
评论 #16359099 未加载
评论 #16352652 未加载
评论 #16352396 未加载
评论 #16347836 未加载
评论 #16347491 未加载
评论 #16400959 未加载
root_axisover 7 years ago
html, css, and jQuery work just about exactly the same as they did a decade ago, nothing stops you from using tools you already understand.<p>If it was up to facebook then react would be the only framework used on the web; problem solved right? In reality, there are different tools for different needs and if you don&#x27;t understand the specific problems a tool was made to solve then of course you&#x27;re going to find it confusing.<p>Just because a tool exists doesn&#x27;t mean you have to use it. These tools were created to solve specific problems that the creators encountered, if you don&#x27;t have that problem or don&#x27;t like the solution then why did you pick the tool?<p>The most baffling part is the strange sense of entitlement as if people releasing their work for free on the internet is a <i>burden</i> to some because now they have to decide if they should use this free option.<p>If you want ES6, typescript, flow, components, css modules, SSR, hot code reloading, &quot;universal&quot; code re-use, postcss, bundling, automatic-code splitting, dead code elimination blah blah blah then that&#x27;s on <i>YOU</i>. Don&#x27;t blame the tools because you are enticed by their capabilities but not willing to understand why and how they work. If you don&#x27;t care about that stuff then problem solved: don&#x27;t bother with them.
评论 #16347108 未加载
评论 #16347438 未加载
评论 #16347417 未加载
评论 #16347653 未加载
评论 #16451430 未加载
评论 #16361349 未加载
评论 #16347811 未加载
评论 #16347642 未加载
dvfjsdhgfvover 7 years ago
I completely share the thoughts of the author of this article. However, I&#x27;m not sure if his proposed solution would work for most people. It&#x27;s not that I want or like to use npm etc. - I&#x27;m forced to use them as it&#x27;s the new default way of working with almost anything useful in today&#x27;s web development work. An alternative would be to start from scratch - and then reinventing all these things again, making another full circle.<p>There could be another solution. A lot of today&#x27;s complexity of the web stems from the fact that we&#x27;re trying to design (web) apps using (HTML) documents. It&#x27;s like building user interfaces in Word (without VBA). You can, but there are much better ways to do it. Why not to define a set of APIs for creating GUIs? Yes, I mean something like XUL which failed because nobody except Mozilla cared. Make it standard, make it easily themeable, and we can finally throw away this mess of ugly hacks used now to create intricate GUIs for which we have dedicated widgets on the desktop and which we have to reimplement on the web, with mixed results.
评论 #16346784 未加载
评论 #16346681 未加载
评论 #16346704 未加载
评论 #16346607 未加载
评论 #16346694 未加载
评论 #16346707 未加载
评论 #16346632 未加载
Falkon1313over 7 years ago
&gt;simply npm your webpack via grunt with vue babel or bower to react asdfjkl;lkdhgxdlciuhw<p>&gt;[...]<p>&gt;I had to install a package manager to install a package manager.<p>And that&#x27;s coming from a designer, not a programmer.<p>A few years ago I had to take over a project that required installing something like 6 different package managers, 2 build systems, and a dozen different languages (counting things like jade and coffeescript), including dependencies that somehow required conflicting versions of the same libraries! (It took building pieces of it on 2 separate VMs and then merging them to get it to work.) All to build what turned out to be a simple little web site that in the end was basically 12 static pages and a simple form. That doesn&#x27;t make things way easier.<p>When I started programming, the key important things were to focus on getting the data model accurate, getting the business logic correct, validating input properly, and producing the desired output. Now that is maybe 5-10% of our workload, the other 90+% is dealing with dependencies, build tools, frameworks, 57 layers of generic abstraction, and all the fragile interconnections and leaky abstractions and compatibility issues between all of those things needed primarily just to simply display a page of content or handle a CRUD form.<p>Sure, they&#x27;re beautiful and interesting from an intellectual standpoint, and when they&#x27;re working properly, they do make things that were once quite difficult a lot easier. But they also add a lot of complexity, require a lot of maintenance, and make the simple things much more complicated. Often, it&#x27;s as if we&#x27;re flying a squadron of helicopters down to the corner store to get milk (because isn&#x27;t that cool and fun?!), and by the time the operation&#x27;s completed and we&#x27;ve returned home and got all the helicopters repaired, we realize that we forgot the milk, or it&#x27;s already spoiled, or we ended up with a potato instead.<p>I do love playing with the new toys. React is really cool, a lot of the new stuff is interesting. But all those layers, all that indirection, all that distances us from the domain data and business logic can make it a lot harder to solve real problems and produce real value. Sometimes I just want to build something and not have to deal with all that mess.
评论 #16346970 未加载
评论 #16346796 未加载
评论 #16354362 未加载
评论 #16346974 未加载
ktpsnsover 7 years ago
Did anybody notice that the 1997&#x27;s Hello World example <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;frankchimero.com&#x2F;writing&#x2F;everything-easy-is-hard-again&#x2F;images&#x2F;notepad.gif" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;frankchimero.com&#x2F;writing&#x2F;everything-easy-is-hard-aga...</a> still works? Open the most easy built-in text editor on your system (even on Android one should be able to do that, isn&#x27;t it), save it, open it with your browser locally.<p>In some aspects, the evolution of the web is similar to what the C language ecosystem experienced. It was dead simple in the beginning --- however the &quot;Hello World&quot; is still the same! Today&#x27;s users are more demanding in terms of user interfaces and you will not go far without libraries. Same story with building modern &quot;reactive&quot; websites.<p>I personally like that CSS got more powerful, it allows us to build modern websites without JavaScript. That wasn&#x27;t possible 20 years ago.
评论 #16347181 未加载
评论 #16347064 未加载
placeboover 7 years ago
I think it has a great deal to do with abandoning something simple not because it&#x27;s not good enough to do the job, but because of fear of being left behind, fear of becoming irrelevant in a world where &quot;new and improved&quot; is introduced at an ever growing frequency.<p>Sure, improvement is a good thing, but the question I think we sometimes forget to ask ourselves is when does the cost involved in certain technological improvements (more learning curves, higher process complexity, energy required to stay on top of the rapidly changing technologies and tools etc.) start to become higher than the benefits produced by the so called improvement.<p>I&#x27;ve been in this field long enough to see how many times hype beats common sense, unnecessary complexity beats simplicity, and emotion beats logic (heck, I&#x27;d bet it&#x27;s a common theme outside the technology sector as well) but I&#x27;m optimistic - the bottom line is that things are improving and even though things sometimes seem circular, it&#x27;s more of an upward spiral.
megaman22over 7 years ago
&gt; There’s a voice in the back of my head saying we’re stuck in a loop and it’s repeating. We’ve completed a lap on a cycle which will go around forever. Another approach for layout will come along five years from now, it will probably resemble floats, and not knowing how to clear a float will bite me in the ass for the second time in my career.<p>This is what I feel like everytime I try to keep up with web tech... For crissakes, the last training I went to had a session on Razor Pages, which set off my PTSD from years of doing ASP.NET WebForms, back before we decided that was a really awful, painful way to do things.
gjvcover 7 years ago
This is an excellent piece of writing. The aphorism &quot;Go slow and fix things.&quot; is brilliant. I&#x27;m stealing that.<p>I implore people reading this thread to watch this Alan Kay video from 1997, where he rather predicts (albeit perhaps implicitly, if not explicitly) that we will reach the situation we are in today.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY</a><p>There is a quote from the talk which rings true with many of the comments here &quot;HTML on the internet has gone back to the dark ages, because it presupposes that there should be a browser which understands its formats&quot;<p>I have found the odd nit with the article:<p>&quot;In one way, it is easier to be inexperienced: you don’t have to learn what is no longer relevant.&quot;<p>I think he might mean <i>unlearn</i>, but it&#x27;s a bit ambiguous. :-)
评论 #16353638 未加载
wmnwmnover 7 years ago
This is so true and I&#x27;m certain it&#x27;s related to the noticeable downgrade in web performance and usability over the past five years. So many sites are flabby and slow now because they&#x27;re retrieving countless packages from CDN&#x27;s, each time of course with a ssh handshake, etc etc. You can see endless retrievals flashing on the bottom bar, sometimes literally never stopping, as the site keeps doing one thing after another to anticipate what you might want to do, load new content, or whatever. I find the web only barely enjoyable to use anymore. Even the simplest things seem to blow up now, e.g. very often I get &quot;not found&quot; for the Google homepage. Huh? That one&#x27;s probably on me somehow, but I&#x27;m not doing anything different that I know of, but what has changed that I know of is the extreme increase in complexity of internet delivery and programming. And I will just vent one more pet peeve. Not EVERY part of a web page needs to pop something up in your face when you put the mouse over it. Thank you.
tzaholaover 7 years ago
Actually that’s pretty much what I would expect if I tried to build interactive applications on top of a declarative document format whose standardization was co-opted by the largest advertisement company, while working with novices straight out of last week’s coding bootcamp eagerly reinventing the wheel out of their lack of experience and mentoring.
Jedi72over 7 years ago
By chance I ended up at the Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffets company, more like mega-conglomerate) website today.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.berkshirehathaway.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.berkshirehathaway.com</a><p>If that site is good enough for one of the worlds most valuable corporations, maybe we&#x27;re just massively over-doing the entire web?<p>Side note, I laughed really hard when I saw that they had a god damn ad hard-coded on the page hahaha. That&#x27;s how you end up one of the richest investors of all time, waste nothing.
评论 #16347425 未加载
评论 #16347909 未加载
randomsearchover 7 years ago
This is my experience of web development, every time I return to it.<p>I’m really not an expert in web dev, but it _feels_ like web dev has been badly engineered.<p>JavaScript is a very badly designed programming language (yes, even in its modern form), which I think has caused a lot of problems. Many JS developers don’t know much about programming language design, so they can’t see how bad it is, and they make matters worse by not trying to abstract or use JS in a way that reinforces good PL design methods.<p>If you recognise JS as a terribly designed language, then the last thing you would imagine doing is widening its use. But that is exactly what node.js does. You should instead isolate JS and minimise its use. So red flag - something has gone wrong here.<p>It also feels that many web ecosystems have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. This has led to many competing frameworks for the same tasks, that try to do everything. Things are not pythonic. There appear to be an excessive number of package managers involved. There were already plenty of package managers out there - inventing new versions of existing tech makes it harder for everyone and is usually a red flag that someone somewhere is making bad decisions.<p>I need to build a website soon and I’m dreading the front end. At the back end I can use range of solid and well designed languages and technologies, but at the front end I feel like I’ve got to choose the least poor of a bunch of crazy options. If anyone has advice on how someone who prefers rigour, simplicity, elegance, and decent PL design over the latest trend should approach web dev that would be massively helpful. “Sane web dev to minimise the impact of the Web Dev CSS&#x2F;JS disaster on your life” would be my favourite O’Reilly of all time.
评论 #16346900 未加载
评论 #16346946 未加载
评论 #16347400 未加载
评论 #16346663 未加载
评论 #16346913 未加载
评论 #16346705 未加载
评论 #16347147 未加载
评论 #16349427 未加载
评论 #16349246 未加载
评论 #16347469 未加载
评论 #16351003 未加载
评论 #16347399 未加载
评论 #16347906 未加载
评论 #16349437 未加载
评论 #16347046 未加载
评论 #16347857 未加载
评论 #16365569 未加载
评论 #16352462 未加载
评论 #16353651 未加载
评论 #16347263 未加载
评论 #16347278 未加载
评论 #16347101 未加载
评论 #16351697 未加载
评论 #16346930 未加载
评论 #16351712 未加载
评论 #16347411 未加载
评论 #16350311 未加载
baybal2over 7 years ago
&gt;Easy is hard again<p>&gt;JavaScript is a very badly designed programming language (yes, even in its modern form), which I think has caused a lot of problems. Many JS developers don’t know much about programming language design, so they can’t see how bad it is, and they make matters worse by not trying to abstract or use JS in a way that reinforces good PL design methods.<p>I attribute much of this to the cargo culture that always dominated the webdev space. I lost count to how many seasoned devs (5+ year) I met who were telling me that &quot;Framework A&quot; is faster than vanilla JS and DOM with which they were built with, or array methods are for some reason faster than loops without function calls.<p>Another weak side of JS today is it being driven by &quot;design by committee&quot; and attempts to treat the patient by measuring the average body temperature of all patients in a hospital.<p>I put to doubt the level of basic CS proficiency of most JS framework authors. Some times they try to appear smarter than they are.
0x445442over 7 years ago
Web apps are broken and always have been. The whole model was designed to serve and display static hyperlinked documents, not to recreate Excel in a browser.<p>The lure of web apps was serving them from a centrally controlled location thus eliminating the problems that existed with pushing out and updating software on many computers.<p>However, that problem was solved many years ago and I point to iTunes as that inflexion point. It&#x27;s been easy to push updates to desktop clients for years so the main problem web apps were attempting to solve hasn&#x27;t been a problem for, like, 15 years.<p>The ultimate irony... The phone app eco-system and how it dwarfs mobile web apps.
ohaziover 7 years ago
Choice quotes:<p>&gt; Directness is best in my experience, so a great photo, memorable illustration, or pitch-perfect sentence does most of the work. Beyond that, fancy implementation has never moved the needle much for my clients.<p>&gt; Last month, I had to install a package manager to install a package manager.<p>...<p>I sure as hell know about spaghetti workflows and spaghetti toolchains. It feels like we’re there now on the web.
评论 #16346717 未加载
评论 #16346892 未加载
skrebbelover 7 years ago
When I worked in embedded systems and systems programming a decade ago, it was totally normal to spend over a day getting your computer set up after joining a new team.<p>Sounds exactly like what the author describes here, so what changed? What changed is that the browser became a popular application platform, forcing frontenders to deal with the stuff everybody else has been doing for decades.<p>I&#x27;m not saying this can&#x27;t be improved, and there&#x27;s a huge difference between projects in that respect. I know teams where getting up and running is a matter of installing node, yarn, and running a &quot;yarn install&quot; and It Just Works.<p>But the thing is, build tooling is hard and it always has been. This has little to do with web design, except that designers used to have the comfort to be able to ignore it. And that&#x27;s harder with single-page web apps.
评论 #16352521 未加载
评论 #16347045 未加载
golergkaover 7 years ago
I&#x27;ve almost never touched web development, but as an active HN reader I have at least passing familiarity with almost all the terms used in the article.<p>So, honest question: can a person fully understand how modern HTML&#x2F;CSS work without diving in the source code of one of the browser engines? Because as a developer, if I was forced to use such a complicated technology, grooming source would be my best guess at making any sense out of it.
评论 #16346686 未加载
评论 #16346596 未加载
评论 #16346656 未加载
评论 #16346657 未加载
sureaboutthisover 7 years ago
I have found lately that many web things today are based on fads and they have found their way into the standards. In the past, standards were developed through engineering and computer science. Today it&#x27;s based on fireworks, explosions and emojis. Speed trumps quality. Do not want to think is the motto or slogan.<p>If there is a framework or library I can use then, great, I don&#x27;t have to know how it works so I won&#x27;t bother seems to be the mantra today. Which, in my mind, reminds me of &quot;All in the Family&quot; scene where Gloria is talking to her friend. &quot;Daddy said girls don&#x27;t have sex, only boys do.&quot; Friend: &quot;Then who do the boys have sex with?&quot; Meaning, if no one is doing the thinking, who is going to write the code?
评论 #16346955 未加载
dmitriidover 7 years ago
I&#x27;ve recently realised that most of modern day&#x27;s web stem from the fact that it&#x27;s <i>not a platform</i>. It&#x27;s still just a barely functioning system to display text documents.<p>That&#x27;s where all the complexity comes from: people are trying to build&#x2F;collect the missing pieces of a platform, and then try to build their stuff on top of it.<p>And you can see it everywhere: from CSS (which still pretends that modularity doesn&#x27;t exist or that complex constraints in layouts do not exist) to DOM (which hasn&#x27;t seen a proper API design in years) to Javascript (whose idea of a standard library is adding an underspecified `fetch` after 15 years of people writing wrappers around XMLHttpRequest).
评论 #16354363 未加载
danieltillettover 7 years ago
The whole thing is driven by all fields reaching the highest level of complexity their practitioners can understand.<p>Web design in not inherently complex, but it is filled with lots of talented and intelligent people because the pay is good and the conditions cushy compared to say gutting chickens in some factory. The only way to solve to the complexity treadmill is to drive out all the smart people.
评论 #16347140 未加载
vex3dover 7 years ago
No it&#x27;s not. You decided to make &quot;easy&quot; tasks complicated. Then rather than learning about new technology you wrote a blog moaning about it. Just stick the basics if that&#x27;s what you want to do. No need for loaders or preprocessors if you don&#x27;t want to use them.
jbverschoorover 7 years ago
People should understand that html was a document markup language. This means the flow of text.<p>People are using it for applications too. Many websites are a combination of both:<p>A &quot;frame&quot; with navigational headers etc (application). And a document-view. This document view is what html was indented for.<p>The solution is to use this flex-box (which is simply tsacklayouts etc) for the application, and the document-flow for text.<p>edit: oh, and drop the javascripts
keypressover 7 years ago
I love the way that the the author, skirts totally over Javascript, and yet the threads here are full of mild skirmishing.<p>The closing paragraph is the nicest part of the article, mentioning the benefits of legibility.<p>I never disliked the mechanics of html table based layouts, col and row spans, what wasn&#x27;t so nice was the attribute soup. That made reading the outlines of the html hard.<p>Back in the day we had tools like Dreamweaver, that had a visual design mode. It was quirky so people resorted to programming html in text editors. What&#x27;s a real shame is that there wasn&#x27;t a tool that matured to the point, where you could do a little of both.<p>The most interesting part about a website for me, is usually the content, and the rest is pretty much guff. The nicest thing about simple authoring is that it allows the on-boarding of everyone. Not just arty or programming types. This is why Facebook in part took off. Because it made publishing easy. Weeks, months and even years of development just to get to the point of publishing is rather wasteful. Many sites could simply use a template product.<p>Review the end result. Many web sites still just look not much more than, erm, web sites. And many don&#x27;t work, or even convey or make the information that you simply want to consume easy to find and digest.<p>Loads of technology is thrown at problem, where a simple site map and text based content will suffice. And if a business isn&#x27;t reactive to customer requests, or doesn&#x27;t update relevant content - then a site becomes quite superfluous or even a liability.
devensonover 7 years ago
It&#x27;s not hard to make websites, it hard to make <i>fashionable</i> websites. It always takes effort to be fashionable, since it distinguishes your vitality from the dead and dying from yesteryear.<p>If it was easy to fake fashion, everyone would do it, and we&#x27;d lose the vitality signal. Fashion changes unpredictably, so it can&#x27;t be anticipated. All this is a feature, not a bug, so it will never be &quot;solved&quot;.
评论 #16357749 未加载
whackover 7 years ago
As a back-end developer, I started off coding ~15 years ago, and hated the entire experience back then. Nowadays, as I look at the tools, frameworks and language enhancements, I&#x27;m so glad to be coding in 2018, and not in 2004. The things I can easily accomplish now, far exceed anything I could have done back then.<p>I&#x27;ve heard so many front-end developers&#x2F;designers say the opposite about their field though, and I wonder why that is. If the newer tools&#x2F;frameworks are just adding more complexity, or reinventing the wheel, couldn&#x27;t you just choose not to use them? I suppose some might reply that you&#x27;re forced to use these new tools&#x2F;frameworks, because of dependencies on other tools&#x2F;frameworks that you actually care about. But if that&#x27;s really the case, and if this frustration is widespread enough, wouldn&#x27;t people&#x2F;companies have invested time and effort into supporting the classic-but-equally-good tooling?<p>As someone watching from the outside, I can&#x27;t imagine a world where an entire industry is running in circles, creating churn devoid of positive value. Maybe I&#x27;m too optimistic, but I suspect that many of the complainers are suffering from rose-colored glasses. As a heavy web-user, I&#x27;ve noticed that the functionality and aesthetics of websites have improved <i>dramatically</i> in the past 1-2 decades. The websites I see from the 90s and early 2000s, look like a joke today. I suspect that this improvement is only made possible by the new tooling and frameworks that exist today. That they are indeed more complex, but they still unlock new potential that would be too hard to achieve otherwise. That anyone who tries to use ancient tooling from 10-20 years ago, would find themselves unable to provide an equally good mass-market UX. If this is not the case, I invite someone to prove me wrong.
xtrapolateover 7 years ago
When I&#x27;m thinking about bloated web frameworks and inefficient libraries, I often come back to memories of 64k demos released by groups such as Farbrausch. Here&#x27;s what they&#x27;ve pulled off in 2000: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Y3n3c_8Nn2Y" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Y3n3c_8Nn2Y</a> - as somewhat of a &quot;contrast&quot;, jQuery alone (3.0.0-alpha1, minified) weighs 84522 bytes.<p>Use (what you deem as) the right tool for the job. As to how we&#x27;ve got to where we are today, there are lots of reasons - but personally, I feel it&#x27;s pointless to constantly talk about it. Whether things are more complex than they used to be is up for debate, it&#x27;s entirely subjective.<p>It&#x27;s natural for things to evolve given the rising popularity and increased demands - but they evolve organically. People flock to frameworks because there&#x27;s abstraction, and the &quot;dirty work&quot; has been offloaded to a third-party. This saves people time and effort. It&#x27;s a bet - frameworks come and go, maintainers disappear; that&#x27;s just the nature of it.
collinmandersonover 7 years ago
Addressing the points in the article:<p>&quot;How do I put two things next to each other?&quot; - Just stick with flexbox. It&#x27;s way easier than floats. If the older methods are easier, just keep using them no problem.<p>&quot;Webfonts?&quot; - 10 years ago we were using &quot;swfir&quot; (flash) for custom fonts. Way harder than font-face. Loading fonts with @font-face doesn&#x27;t need to be complicated: just serve the woff file and be done with it. There are some optimizations that can be done to make them load faster, but they&#x27;re not always worth it.<p>SVGs are really nice because you don&#x27;t need to deal with any resizing. A huge win.<p>Yes, raster images are a little harder because of high-dpi screens. Just send 2x resolution everywhere. Phones are where bandwidth really matters, and they&#x27;re mostly high-dpi anyway. A 3x dpi phone getting a 2x image is still pretty good. Any of the more complicated solutions are just to make things slightly faster in some cases, which is often not worth it.
lobo_tuertoover 7 years ago
I don&#x27;t get all the ranting. I think the author would be better doing a research about the current technologies for doing websites (as opposed to web apps).<p>For websites I can recommend Bulma, it&#x27;s an elegant base for modern websites. If you want to manage content for that website you can integrate Hugo an get into the world of static site generators.<p>If you really want to do anything more complex, there is Vue.js.<p>You can still use &lt;table&gt;s for layout if you want, there is nothing forcing you to use CSS Grid. But if you do learn it, you&#x27;ll be able to produce more complex layouts with a little less effort.<p>There is a free course for that: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cssgrid.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cssgrid.io&#x2F;</a><p>I just moved my blog from WordPress to Hugo + Bulma and have been enjoying the journey all along: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lobotuerto.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lobotuerto.com</a>
squiggy22over 7 years ago
Innovation often has casualities and the pace of innovation of the front end particularly has exploded in the last few years combine that with mobile uptake and we have a whole can of soup on our hands. At the moment it feels like we havent quite settled on a proposed standard of build tools and processes which comes across as daunting but imo is also indicative of not reaching the absolute peak. Underneath it all we still have the fundamentals of html css and js and that aint gonna change anytime soon.. I only hope some of the tools we have for layouts settle soon as the browser landscape and chasms are only getting wider as mobile devices and iot throws a whole new can of worms at producing cross browser compatible applications. In my instances that fact alone is choking the web.
mratzloffover 7 years ago
Much of the JavaScript ecosystem can be cringeworthy, but recent versions of JavaScript are far better than the days of ES3, and libraries like Babel are high-quality.<p>With modern improvements to XMLHttpRequest, the URL object, and JSX (actually quite easy to use without React), I suspect that creating a fast, modern website using only Babel, Yarn, and a few polyfills (mainly for IE) is quite easy and enjoyable. Of course, if you want a styled date field, autocomplete field, etc., you&#x27;ll want to use a library, which may have its own dependencies.<p>As for CSS, everyone agrees that flexbox is a godsend.
评论 #16347473 未加载
user15128over 7 years ago
you still can write `&lt;html&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;h1&gt;hello world&lt;&#x2F;h1&gt;&lt;&#x2F;body&gt;&lt;&#x2F;html&gt;`, there is nothing wrong with it!<p>but once you have written a file-browser with an embedded editor in it or anything else at more complex level, you will consider using react and all the things. because complex things are complex.<p>again, for simple things you can easily use simple tools - maybe you should. but of course once you are using react day in day out because you need it for other things - you might just use it for anything because you are familiar with it.
lkrubnerover 7 years ago
This is perhaps my favorite part:<p>&quot;<i>If you go talk to a senior software developer, you’ll probably hear them complain about spaghetti code. This is when code is overwrought, unorganized, opaque, and snarled with dependencies. I perked up when I heard the term used for the first time, because, while I can’t identify spaghetti code as a designer, I sure as hell know about spaghetti workflows and spaghetti toolchains. It feels like we’re there now on the web.</i>&quot;
abalashovover 7 years ago
It’s rare that I say someone has truly nailed it, but the author has really nailed it. And while much of the critical response has focused on the difference between design and programming, I can say as someone who has been around the programming block (got started at age 9) that 99% of what he says applies equally well to modern application development and infrastructure.
_pmf_over 7 years ago
I&#x27;m spending my free time asking on web developer forums how to center something vertically.
heleniusover 7 years ago
Maybe somewhat related: can anybody guess what the idea behind the images in this article is?<p><pre><code> &lt;img src=&quot;&#x2F;images&#x2F;trans.gif&quot; data-src=&quot;images&#x2F;speaking.png&quot;&gt; </code></pre> trans.gif is just a 1x1px invisible pixel.
评论 #16346838 未加载
评论 #16346751 未加载
kup0over 7 years ago
This speaks to me strongly, having done this many times: &quot;I’m still not sure I understand it; I type clear: both and say a prayer to the box model.&quot;
mar77iover 7 years ago
reminds me of <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #16352369 未加载
steschover 7 years ago
I read this article in reader view of the browser.
csbartusover 7 years ago
I&#x27;ve just tried to copy paste the title of the article ... but it&#x27;s impossible ... it&#x27;s an image.<p>If after 20 years of web design and development you still don&#x27;t get it, then everything easy is hard again.
评论 #16346590 未加载
bullenover 7 years ago
I still use tables.
factsaresacredover 7 years ago
Well written and beautifully presented but these are complaints about progress.<p>&gt; &#x27;my limited needs...Simple, responsive layout&#x27;<p>As we all know, limited&#x2F;simple in the requirements doesn&#x27;t mean simple to implement. &quot;I want this page to look the same on any size screen, whether viewed horizontally or vertically&quot;. OK. It&#x27;s surprising it&#x27;s as simple as it is.<p>&gt; &#x27;I thought implementing webfonts was a relatively easy procedure, but I guess not!&#x27;<p>No, it is easy. If you want to read 90 pages of marketing-promo disguised as a guide to fonts, do so. But you don&#x27;t have to. Go to google fonts, pick one, add the URL to the head of your webpage, done.<p>&gt; We’re a long way from the CSS Zen Garden where I started.<p>That way is still there. It&#x27;s just slow and messy. You can still inline your CSS, use external css files. Whatever you want.<p>&gt; Before, the websites could explain themselves; now, someone needs to walk you through it.<p>Before, scrolling text and gifs were the cutting edge of web technology. Now we have Photoshop, online IDEs, real-time trading applications <i>in the browser</i>. This is magic. And magic isn&#x27;t easy.<p>Furthermore, modern browser element inspectors provide an excellent explanation of what&#x27;s happening on a webpage.<p>The web isn&#x27;t static - as the browser advances we use new tools to handle the possibility as well as the complexity. But the old ways are still available. Although I&#x27;m not convinced that the 30 minutes of mental overhead getting to know npm and flexbox beats the mess of external resources, duplicate code and utter pain that was the web of the past.