11–20 of 337 posts
I have a feeling that this is the next religious war in dev. I read this article and shudder in horror at, well, all of it. I like static sites (that wouldn't take minutes to build if they were written in a decent language). Adding lots and lots of JS dependencies and frameworks gives me the screaming ab-dabs - it's just adding complexity and dependency. I like writing code, not plumbing together bits of other people…
> Remix.run gives us the best of both worlds. Still writing your site predominately with JavaScript. [...] This point is stated as if it's a widely accepted truth. Is that really the case? I still labour under the misapprehension that one should aim to use as little javascript as possible.
> I still labour under the misapprehension that one should aim to use as little javascript as possible. Well, this is so 2005.
I work with developers still have difficulty with concepts like specificity and cascading even though they have been working with CSS for many years.
I don't think statements like this are true or encouraging.
From reading this I get the sense the problems are lower level and there is no impetus to fix them. I'm embarrassed to say, having programmed for over a decade, and running Linux for half of that, I still have no idea how to setup my computer to serve a webpage (or even a file) I probably need to `apt-get install apache` and then deal with some magic config files and incantations and hope I don't mess something up an…
Today is a very good time to build websites, because a good website is the only way to push back to Big Tech and it's practices. Your website can be build on techniques invented in a time where the dream of the internet was not yet shattered by Big Tech.
Of course you can choose to put your website on AWS and svck on the bolls of Jeff a little. But you don't have to! And that's what all kinds of young devs just miss.
Oh, and RSS is not dead. Not at all (thanks WordPress, for putting a feed on every instance). RSS is the only workable way to make the web social again.
I have a feeling that this is the next religious war in dev. I read this article and shudder in horror at, well, all of it. I like static sites (that wouldn't take minutes to build if they were written in a decent language). Adding lots and lots of JS dependencies and frameworks gives me the screaming ab-dabs - it's just adding complexity and dependency. I like writing code, not plumbing together bits of other people…
I feel the same way as the author but I work with php. Recently it's all been TDD, statically typed, and JavaScript gets web packed into one or two files so instead of juggling 15 script tags I only have one or two and a style tag for css. With CI this all happens in the background on every commit. What you pay for when you hire a dev like me with 17 years of experience in the field is the ability to know which libra…
I am just getting into TypeScript programming, and I am really having fun. I learnt about the details of how Javascript works, and it is quite cool to have a static layer over a dynamic one. For learning JavaScript, I like "The Good Parts" and the "You don't know JS" series. It took me a while to learn how to create a datatype that can defend its invariants not only statically, but also at runtime, but that seems quite feasible as well, especially with decorators. It is interesting though that nobody seems to be particularly interested in doing that, there is not much direct information about this available.
No it's not, because your website will not get traction unless you SEO the hell out of it, pay google ads, pay for FB ads, pay some blogger to write about it etc. It's impossible for a website to be found when the top spots in every search are capped by a few known players. It's easy to make a private web page, but that's not a website. In fact the best time was about 2005, when most current day's media sites started…
If you stay in IT long enough you may see this cycle repeat 3 or 4 times
From reading this I get the sense the problems are lower level and there is no impetus to fix them. I'm embarrassed to say, having programmed for over a decade, and running Linux for half of that, I still have no idea how to setup my computer to serve a webpage (or even a file) I probably need to `apt-get install apache` and then deal with some magic config files and incantations and hope I don't mess something up an…
That's what I did for the first few iterations of https://lunar.fyi and it really helped with giving people the right information fast while I could keep spending time on the real work (developing the Lunar app)
But if hosting from home is what matters the most, there is an easier way nowadays using Caddy (https://caddyserver.com) and ngrok (https://ngrok.com).
For example, I just hosted this website (https://af62-2a02-2f0e-d00f-e100-f513-b43-fbc1-cf5d.ngrok.io) using the following commands:
caddy file-server -listen 0.0.0.0:6001
ngrok http localhost:6001
.gq .tk .ml .cf. ga
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, TFA praises Tailwind CSS as "solving CSS", and as great as it may be, I guess that statement lacks a bit of nuance.
I hear so many people recommend Tailwind but every time I look at examples it reminds me of an entry for the 17th Annual Esoteric Programming Language Competition. Maybe you get used to it but hell it looks hard to parse visually.
Unless you follow very strict development guidelines, you do not really know anything unless you look at the computed styles in a debugging tool.
I think Tailwind does help wrangle some of that cognitive overhead with its naming system.