151–160 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I thought when I integrated Google Wave into my companies workflow... /s
I noticed the sarcasm, but, Google Wave never got out of beta (iirc) so anyone seriously adopting it knew what they were getting into. Same with gmail which was in beta for years for some reason - probably because they wanted to avoid liability for lost data etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is: how many of these will be maintained several years later? Can you build a long term project on these? Or the expectation is that one has to make a new UI anyway every several years to keep up with the changing fashion, so rewrites are inevitable?
Sure, if it works now, it'll work ten years down the line as long as they're not doing anything nonstandard. There's a big fear that projects that become unmaintained suddenly stop working; this isn't correct. Besides, all webapps are rebuilt in a 3-5 year cycle anyway so it really doesn't matter.
Why are these UI frameworks tied to React, rather than working for any HTML+CSS site (as with Bootstrap)? Do they provide interactive functionality that requires React or similar?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in a similar boat as you. We actually started building on top of Ant. However, we first started out by building out our Admin pages and they were built with Blueprint. I like Blueprint a lot more than Ant, but Blueprint doesn't pretend to support responsive applications[1], which was somewhat important to us. Blueprint exposes a couple building blocks (like PopOver) which really help in building more custom funct…
I've been using Blueprint and pairing it with Basscss for some responsive assistance and it's been successful (and a lot of fun).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is: how many of these will be maintained several years later? Can you build a long term project on these? Or the expectation is that one has to make a new UI anyway every several years to keep up with the changing fashion, so rewrites are inevitable?
Sure, if it works now, it'll work ten years down the line as long as they're not doing anything nonstandard. There's a big fear that projects that become unmaintained suddenly stop working; this isn't correct. Besides, all webapps are rebuilt in a 3-5 year cycle anyway so it really doesn't matter.
And I thought places I worked at tended to be terrible :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I thought when I integrated Google Wave into my companies workflow... /s
I noticed the sarcasm, but, Google Wave never got out of beta (iirc) so anyone seriously adopting it knew what they were getting into. Same with gmail which was in beta for years for some reason - probably because they wanted to avoid liability for lost data etc.
Why are these UI frameworks tied to React, rather than working for any HTML+CSS site (as with Bootstrap)? Do they provide interactive functionality that requires React or similar?
Not sure about interactive functionality. But it basically means it provides ready-made React components.
The reason I asked it is that, if you're building an HTML+CSS framework for use in React, then why wouldn't you separate out the HTML+CSS part, and then depend on this. That way it would be easy to re-use 90% of the work, if you then want to use the components with Vue or some other framework, or even for plain static pages.
This list was posted a few weeks ago, but here is a fairly definitive list of similar UI frameworks: https://element.eleme.io/ https://ant.design/ https://quasar-framework.org/ https://at-ui.github.io/at-ui/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric https://vmware.github.io/clarity/ http://appnexus.github.io/lucid/ https://ng-lightning.github.io/ng-lightning/ https://blueprintjs.com/ http://www.jetbrains.org/ring-…
Another to add to the list: https://instructure.design (Disclaimer: made by my coworkers)
Why are these UI frameworks tied to React, rather than working for any HTML+CSS site (as with Bootstrap)? Do they provide interactive functionality that requires React or similar?
Probably because the people making them are using React, and first and foremost they're making it for themselves.
That's a minor thing but when I press the back button on one of the documentation pages it takes 6 seconds to go back (first it changes the title of the tab then it seems to wait for 6 seconds, probably parsing and running several MB of JavaScript). Sometimes the tab titles is blinking and displaying "Evergreen" and "Components - Evergreen" very quickly during these 6 seconds. You'd think in 2018 going back to a page…
This doesn't happen for me, it is pretty quick. I am in India and on a 40 Mbps connection.