Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm betting on HTML

catskull.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 458 posts

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#61

Post by rado »

Gigachad wrote: post #56
klardotsh wrote: post #9

I had heard of almost none of these HTML elements, and that's such a shame, because they could seriously help put the "we need JavaScript for every gosh darn thing" ecosystem to an end (or at least return JS to what it was originally meant to be: a way to add some flair, some interactivity, some whatever, but not necessarily a replacement for all of your markup and a full-DOM manager). I'm starting to think my dream…

In general the issue with these built in components is that you can't theme them. And they stick out like a sore thumb when you get a windows 7 style component in the middle of a modern looking app. They also have basically no extensibility so when you inevitably need to do something half complex, you have to scrap it and start again with JS. So you may as well have just started with JS which just works, gives you fu…

, , etc can be themed

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#62

Post by klabb3 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #44
kapitanjakc wrote: post #7

HTML is that nerd who's rich now. Give me HTML,CSS,JS combo any day over some complex js library or platform.

Good luck making anything complex by relying on a bespoke library for DOM updates. In contrast, React became a breath of fresh air, emulating the game development approach to rendering new frames: just literally rebuild the components.

Yes reactive UI is the only thing I can’t live without. React, Svelte, Vue are all fine. Trying to mirror state into and back from DOM manually is absolute disaster.

I really hope this becomes standardized at some point. Would be great to have consensus around.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#63

Post by Closi »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #30
nathansherburn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll be fine. If anything CSS is the one thing that's gotten easier in web dev. It might take some time but you'll be able to grok it for sure if you've dealt with old school CSS.

ehh... more organized / better? Sure. Easier? Well, even if you don't have to deal with legacy styling (which had moments of insanity, like floats, and other things which were fairly reasonable, like tables, br, b, i), there is so much new CSS to replace the old: variables, transforms, complex animations, using borders to make arrows and other visual content, in flow vs out of flow, container queries, view transition…

By easier they probably mean “it’s easier to do the same thing” - eg centering a div.

It’s also become deeper at the same time though - so it might be easier to do the same thing and harder to know it all.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#64

Post by mmahemoff »

p-e-w wrote: post #26

HTML is the solution to walled-garden lock-in? What? Those walled gardens already use HTML, including some of the semantic elements mentioned (plus ARIA semantic attributes, which are much more sophisticated). > ChatGPT-like interfaces are likely the future of human data access. And the whole point of artificial intelligence systems is that they don't require specialized "machine-readable" annotations in order to pro…

Valid point. Ironically the main benefit of semantic markup is now an abstraction to help the human developers effect styling and control.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#65

Post by adamredwoods »

>> Moreover, proper tagging is extremely descriptive in a machine-readable format. This is likely a more compelling reason for adopting modern HTML than saving design time.

Why do I want to make my website AI-accessible? It, or some mega-rich company will reap the rewards, not me.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#67

Post by politelemon »

mkl95 wrote: post #13

> Pretty much you can highlight text. By default Safari shows a yellow highlight. I like it! Chrome also shows a yellow highlight by default. But since I don't have Safari installed on my machine, I don't know if it's exactly the same color. Also, I'm not sure if other browsers have the same default color. Isn't it a good use case for CSS?

Yep you can style it with background color: https://jsfiddle.net/wezkth43/

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#69

Post by jcotton42 »

adamredwoods wrote: post #65

>> Moreover, proper tagging is extremely descriptive in a machine-readable format. This is likely a more compelling reason for adopting modern HTML than saving design time. Why do I want to make my website AI-accessible? It, or some mega-rich company will reap the rewards, not me.

Machine-readable here also means screenreader-readable
Post reply on HN