Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you are also a fan of lickable.js
What are HNs policies around tongue-in-cheek comments?
Tongue-in-cheek is OK after a lick.
HTML First
31–40 of 551 posts
Re: HTML First
#32This is all nice and suckless, until you will have to scale your codebase and/or add some more features (possibly alter someone's code) and deal with exponential complexity of DOM manipulation. React came to solve all this
Re: HTML First
#33This is a blog spam post written by an author that has no credibility in the space rather than creating an agency that touts itself as "A software agency that doesn't suck.". How bizarre. Even more, the author uses every possible library under the sun, from Tailwind to Framer, only to evangelise about raw HTML and topics he provides no credibility on. To add to that, even the links to learn more about their agency al…
[deleted]
Re: HTML First
#34While I agree with most of the arguments here, this article feels a little contradictory - it recommends Tailwind but also tells us to 'stay clear of build steps'. Shipping massive CSS/JS resources goes against the whole inclusivity principle - many people don't have super fast internet connections or powerful enough computers..
Re: HTML First
#35This is a blog spam post written by an author that has no credibility in the space rather than creating an agency that touts itself as "A software agency that doesn't suck.". How bizarre. Even more, the author uses every possible library under the sun, from Tailwind to Framer, only to evangelise about raw HTML and topics he provides no credibility on. To add to that, even the links to learn more about their agency al…
I like how he concludes "The practices and principles described on this site are still considered niche in the industry as a whole". Like he's the only one out there who knows about the details/summary tags, or who uses static HTML documents instead of React.
The details tag is a mainstay of the "You don't need JS" genre. Every time I see it mentioned in one of these, it's always presented like it's new, unknown, and maybe a bit secretive. "OoOOoOo, bet you would write a component for this right? Well aren't you feeling silly??"
I think it's showed up on every app I've worked on for the past 5 years.
Re: HTML First
#36Article doesn't even have anchor tags
Re: HTML First
#37The person who created that website should have a look at the recent Rails updates :-)
Or check out DHH's most recent thoughts on minification etc.
Re: HTML First
#38Can the people that want this HTML-first world style it to look the ways they want themselves? My experience has been that proponents of HTMX and the like skew heavily backend and never feel comfortable with CSS. Why listen to UX thoughts from a population who are scared of UX?
This strikes me as a cynical take. Having floated between backend and frontend a lot, frontends naturally tend to become very complex; even before the web. And with three different Turning complete stacks (HTML+JS+CSS) the web already feels pretty heavy before adding in another stateful framework and build tooling to support them.
Folks can disagree about how to keep the system simple when looking at it from different points of view. All those opinions are worthy of consideration.
Re: HTML First
#39While I agree with most of the arguments here, this article feels a little contradictory - it recommends Tailwind but also tells us to 'stay clear of build steps'. Shipping massive CSS/JS resources goes against the whole inclusivity principle - many people don't have super fast internet connections or powerful enough computers..
I don't use Tailwind anymore at the moment, but in my experience, it does not lead to shipping massive CSS/JS resources.
In fact I don't know about any client-side JS at all that is emitted by Tailwind (my last experience was 2.x, not sure if anything has changed).
Regarding the CSS size, my experience was the opposite, Tailwind output was usually a lot smaller than hand-written CSS.
I have nothing against plain CSS either though; but it's at least as easy to make a mess.
Re: HTML First
#40This one confuses me: > Where libraries are necessary, use libraries that leverage html attributes over libraries built around javascript or custom syntax And then they demo using _hyperscript [0] as encouraged. However, that's a library built around a custom syntax. It's only using an HTML attribute to encode a script that's in a new language you need to learn. Is this serious? [0] https://hyperscript.org
Alpine.js would have been a better recommendation according to the authors advice as it is straight forward JS plus HTML attributes.