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

Web Starter Kit

developers.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 218 posts

Re: Web Starter Kit

#41

Post by sdegutis »

pjmlp wrote: post #17
fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

Web was never meant for applications. Other hypertext models like Hypercard and Xerox PARC experiments had better support. I really hope that we can sort out this mess some day. I personally like apps are making the network more relevant than the Web. What matters are communication protocols.

Who could fix it? What organization or individual could possibly create an architecture that all of the web could be ported to, that's better than our existing web? Especially considering we usually get pretty upset at companies for trying that.

Re: Web Starter Kit

#42

Post by ceejayoz »

wldcordeiro wrote: post #34
addyo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Code is great, but I personally love GitHub https://github.com/google https://github.com/googlechrome and so on.

Google Code has been languishing. You guys could really do some things with it to make it a competitor with Github and Bitbucket.

I see Google Code being in the same spot as Google Reader on Google's roadmap.

Re: Web Starter Kit

#43

Post by agumonkey »

adamnemecek wrote: post #26
fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

Indeed. I'm surprised that the whole Cassowary hasn't taken off. It's been around since '99. The fact that it hasn't is probably one of the worse is better 'typathingys'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary_(software) https://www.cs.washington.edu/research/constraints/web/ccss-...

Didn't know it was the logic behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scwm

Re: Web Starter Kit

#44

Post by adamnemecek »

marknutter wrote: post #35
adamnemecek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, xibs solve a bit more complex issue.

That being?

I mean with Xib, you can e.g. specify how the window should behave when you are resizing it since you are specifying layout constraints as opposed to having to hardcode the layout. With CSS, your only recourse is media queries but those are a lot less fine-grained. Look into http://gridstylesheets.org (and more specifically http://gridstylesheets.org/guides/ccss/) which is kinda the love child of CSS and Xib (or the technology that inspired the layout technology).

Re: Web Starter Kit

#45

Post by yesimahuman »

fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

Horrific is an exaggeration. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's overly difficult to build native mobile UIs with standard HTML and CSS.

Also, Flexbox makes this even easier, and is a great step forward.

Re: Web Starter Kit

#46

Post by kinlan »

wuliwong wrote: post #23

It seems the navigation disappears entirely when you shrink the window. I would think they would implement their "hamburger" icon?

Ah, cool I think you have hit an intended design feature. We use min-device-width to know that you started on a smaller screen (or a wide screen). If you are on a wide screen responsive elements are changed slightly to fit the screen. If you start on a small screen you get the hamburger menu.

Can you file an issue on the github project so that we can work on it to see if it is an issue.

Re: Web Starter Kit

#47

Post by vlunkr »

fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

I disagree, HTML/CSS have come a long ways in the past few years, in terms of browser compatibility and features. I don't see how introducing a new layout engine would help. That's just another standard that every platform has to support. Using WebGL would be great, but so far WebGL support on mobile is not great.

If you haven't worked with web tools recently you should see how far they've come. With JS frameworks like Angular or Ember, and crazy fast build tools like Gulp, it's pretty nice developing for the web these days

Re: Web Starter Kit

#48

Post by lukifer »

fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

In particular, the broken implementation of CSS position:fixed on all mobile platforms is probably the major stumbling block preventing app-like interfaces for the mobile web. I have been frequently tempted to try to build a canvas-based interface from scratch, but I suspect even that would run into the same problems.

Re: Web Starter Kit

#49

Post by protonfish »

fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

This is the same complaining I always hear from people who don't want to learn how to use HTML and CSS. Yes, it is different than what you are used to. Yes, it will take some time to learn and some of that will be uncomfortable. But that does not mean that that HTML and CSS are bad. I know this because I successfully build mobile sites that look and function fine and I assure you it works.

You say "hackery is required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps" and I agree with you. Can I ask why it is so important to copy the styling of native? That seems like a lot of effort for no good reason. Mobile web can be better than native if you let it, but forcing it to be something else purely for reasons of fashion is foolish.

HTML/CSS produces a flexible layout that is usable by many different sizes and types of devices (even audio interfaces) and that is a good thing. It takes effort to get it working for all of the possible ways it could be used, but it is possible. After a little practice, it can even get easy. The hard parts of HTML/CSS would still exist in any flexible layout solution. Making a rigid screen-painted layout solution avoids problem inherent in flexible layouts those, but it gives up so much.

Re: Web Starter Kit

#50

Post by spitfire »

fidotron wrote: post #13

The web is now hamstrung by the HTML/CSS layout model more than anything else. The hackery required to attempt to imitate native mobile apps is horrific. Google would be better off throwing efforts into a new layout engine leveraging raw JS and WebGL, but with a sane API, than these continuous attempts to push HTML into places where it doesn't work. If they don't lead it I can see someone else doing it in such a way…

If we're throwing out HTML/CSS why on earth would you keep Javascript? (or also contentiously - HTTP)

If we're throwing away the cruft (which I fully support!), lets do things right. That means planning a (light) abstraction layer for a world where you can use the right tool for the job.

Post reply on HN