Live data from Hacker News

I think I need to go lie down

twitter.com

301–310 of 475 posts

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#301

I feel old now. I'm fairly sure that we could do this almost as fast with VB or Delphi a couple of decades ago, but a little more deterministic results instead of having the tool inferring it from the label names. We had this and then we shoved everything in the browser and forgot that we could do this without using huge amount of compute of some generative AI model. Look at me I'm old yelling at clouds!

And don't forget this stunt took some kilos of Co2 released in the atmosphere to run the AI.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#302
post #281

I feel old now. I'm fairly sure that we could do this almost as fast with VB or Delphi a couple of decades ago, but a little more deterministic results instead of having the tool inferring it from the label names. We had this and then we shoved everything in the browser and forgot that we could do this without using huge amount of compute of some generative AI model. Look at me I'm old yelling at clouds!

You're absolutely correct. When we went to the browser we took 30 years of UI development knowledge and UI/UX principle and flushed it down the toilet. Only very recently have we started to gain composability in browser UIs through things like React, and it's a sad facsimile of the widget composability we had in WYSIWYG UI development on PCs in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The web is a shit UI platform, but that's…

It's also a shit document platform even though that is what it was designed for.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point, but it only applies to the most simple of these examples. This can do all kinds of stuff, for example look further into that thread and you’ll see it implementing tic tac toe. The tool works by basically sending a screenshot of your diagram to GPT4 and saying “implement this”.

The tic-tac-toe example really makes it clear that oh — this works by plagiarism. Until you see that one, it's kind of easy to forget.

The industry has a number of repeating tasks ("Make me a CRUD app"), so "plagiarism", aka "following an example", can go a relatively long way.

The interesting part is going to be stitching such parts together into a whole which has no direct analogs, but each stitching step does.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is, creating a basic form page -is- simple. What is so amazing, is that after ~25 years of web development, we have continued to make it more complicated than it should be, by continuously coming up with new web frameworks that are brilliant for all kind of fancy use cases but overcomplicated for the more common and basic tasks. Yes, there have been exceptions every now and then, but most web devs don't…

Basic "fill out the fields then submit" forms are simple. But many use cases these days want intakes or onboardings like apps, then complain about complexity or timelines when they fail to realize the requirements spawned 45,000 branching paths.

Yah GPT cannot create a form that has that kind of UX, I promise. Try it.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using nitter is the part which avoids engagement-ing with xitter. Not having any context is the part which makes links to xitter useless, most of the time you get a link to a reply but without context it’s difficult to impossible to understand what it’s about, and the link is functionally useless.

I know this doesn't help you in the particular circumstances you mentioned, but: for that I would place the blame on the person who provided the link, for not giving sufficient context to understand.

> for that I would place the blame on the person who provided the link, for not giving sufficient context to understand.

I would not. First, I would assume logged users do get context so they likely are not even aware of the issue, and second that is what link for, if you have a to quote everything you're linking to in full then the web is broken.

xitter is what's broken.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#306
post #276

I was discussing with a client how to integrate our software with his. He sent me a screenshot of the main form. I put the screenshot into ChatGPT and said “make a react form like this in bootstrap”. Made some adjustments, added my software, a few hours later showed the client who was knocked out to see a proof of concept of our systems integrated so quickly. When doing web development I often take a screenshot of a…

Shudder at the thought of every client expecting this for granted

They do that anyway. I've lost count of the number of times customers have asked me for something that "could be knocked out in an afternoon".

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#307
Seems pretty loose with the input prompt. Good thing stake holders are notoriously forgiving and would never ask to push pixels.

I do see the potential as a professional tool if it came in the form of a "fix up" button in a WYSIWYG editor. It would be great if you could haphazardly slap together a UI and have a button that unifies the margins and spacing style without taking too many liberties.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#308
post #122
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? UIs should be repetitive not impressive or original, so users don't have to learn different new interface for every app.

OK but if it's that common it shouldn't take more time to create the final result than the time it took to draw it and render it. We don't want to spend time at such a low level abstraction, we want to be describing higher-level behavior.

> it shouldn't take more time to create the final result than the time it took to draw it and render it

Ideally it should be faster. Ideally it should be slower to draw and render it than it is to create the final result.

My controversial hot take on UI is that I don't think graphical tools like Figma encourage good UX habits. Unless you're doing something really creative, (opinion me) you will get better results if your UI starts in a text editor. You want a slider? What you want is:

  
  
Or better, in a way that your UI designer can understand:

  Volume (0-11 slider) => Music Volume
When we say that these kinds of tasks contain too much boilerplate, its more about the amount of code required to actually wire these things up and about the defaults and caveats of the systems that we're using to build them.

And we say that this kind of boilerplate should be eliminated rather than plugged into an AI, what we're talking about is trying to get rid of the stuff that makes people feel like "well, I just need to draw my interface, it's too much work writing it out or programming it." Because web authorship isn't actually there yet, it isn't efficient and easy to do this boilerplate from scratch.

But in a way, visual representations of high-level behavior are themselves an inefficient way to describe behavior. It's lossy, it doesn't always represent multiple states well, people forget to handle other setups or states. You need to draw boxes and move them around and if you want to reposition anything you have to move everything else around it? Nah, it's a slider from 0-11, it should be double-bound to some kind of variable. And I don't want to think about boxes, I want to think about what the control is and what it does. When I start building UIs, the first thing I do is I make a markdown list that just lists the controls. I don't start by drawing.

This is viewed as a kind of programmer-centric way of thinking about design, but I don't think it is, I think it results in better designs across the board. Drawing shapes should be a step that comes much later in the design process. It should happen, you want to do these kinds of visual tweaks to make sure things line up well and to think about presentation, the same way you want to do a visual pass when typesetting a book. It's not that it's not important, butthe visual position of every element is not the part of the design that's most difficult, figuring out what to show the user and when and how to represent it is the difficult part. And in the same way that you wouldn't write a book and start out thinking about the page breaks, it doesn't make sense to think about the positioning of every control before you've figured out what your controls even are.

It's kind of a failure of modern UI/UX toolkits that people are so hungry for visual design. It's backwards, we treat the behavior of controls as an implementation detail and the positioning of controls as the primary design step. It's the opposite, how a control behaves is important, and how it looks is an implementation detail that we may need to change or polish in the future depending on whether our current app-wide default styles work well for the control or not. But that's because people are so used to feeling disconnected from the implementation and are so used to the implementation being a repetitive chore.

Re: I think I need to go lie down

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been thinking about that a lot recently. Where I work, we spend a very small fraction of our time on building things that are unique to our business. Maybe we are doing something very wrong, but I am under the impression that most of the code that gets written anywhere is extremely low-entropy. This low-entropy, repetitive coding is not limited to the user interfaces. We do tend to describe the same structures…

> we spend a very small fraction of our time on building things that are unique to our business. I usually see this in places/cultures that value code-beautification projects rather than delivering value to the customer. Sometimes, they even want to do the latter, but actually do the former. If you work somewhere that focuses on delivering value, the devs constantly complain about technical debt that will never, ever…

"Code beautification" is not the point, but a tool. Smaller and clearer code could be faster to write, and harder to make mistakes using. This is why e.g. Rails can be so good at producing certain kinds of apps very quickly and in very few LOCs.

The problem is, of course, that simplicity follows complexity, not the other way around. Because of that, it's mostly "trivial" and "repetitive" tasks that receive polished tools for easy and compact expression. Anything new and non-trivial usually grows ugly and uncouth for quite some time.

Post reply on HN