Did not get the point about back- end. But does people remember how FB used to work? After going to the start-page and some clicks it had sent 1000+ requests. This was back when you could expect max 5 connectios per domain. The site was slow. The Android app was basically just a spinner.
Get in zoomer, we're saving React
121–130 of 251 posts
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought windows had bad UX until I tried macOS. Maybe my taste is different than others but I found macOS UX to be really confusing. I particularly disliked the iconset. Interestingly this is not true for iOS and iPadOS, those are magnificent.
I'd say macOS actually is a lot more polished than Windows, but I agree with you that it is damn confusing. Try "closing" an app for example and you'll find that half the time it will not have closed properly, or maybe it did, who knows? It depends on the app. If it's vanilla you can bet it will have to be closed with CMD+Q
I think the convention is for apps where you can open multiple instances of it (document editors, web browsers, etc), closing window won't quit the app.
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought windows had bad UX until I tried macOS. Maybe my taste is different than others but I found macOS UX to be really confusing. I particularly disliked the iconset. Interestingly this is not true for iOS and iPadOS, those are magnificent.
I'd say macOS actually is a lot more polished than Windows, but I agree with you that it is damn confusing. Try "closing" an app for example and you'll find that half the time it will not have closed properly, or maybe it did, who knows? It depends on the app. If it's vanilla you can bet it will have to be closed with CMD+Q
That’s because “proper” macOS apps close windows not apps when you click the little red dot in the upper left. See some of the answers here https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4618/why-mac-applic...
And I agree it’s different from all the other operating systems, once I understood why it made sense.
For example, I can copy an image to my clipboard, and open Preview. No window opens, but the top menu bar shows that Preview is open. From there I can choose the “new from clipboard” entry. It’s just a different model of interaction.
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#124I guess we’re in the “orange” site right now. What is the “red” site?
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#125This article is weird linking together many unrelated strands of thought. Like linking reactive programming to “reactive” UIs, when really they mean UIs that are forgiving to their users instead of breaking down. Or how by coding on the web we’ve lost the immediacy of a UI that runs on our desktop, and the primitives (like undo/redo stacks) that make desktop user interfaces friendlier, at least without having to buil…
As someone who has admittedly worked on approximately 0 user-facing programs, it seems like there are not many revolutionary ideas when it comes UI. I have some dream of a sort of user-interface system that exposes controls and data more directly to the user, independent of the author's stylistic choices. Sort of like semantic HTML with style-sheets that are configured on a per-user basis. It would be analogous to th…
That was the vision of OpenDoc, and the component based CyberDog web browser that Apple built with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDoc
>OpenDoc is a defunct multi-platform software componentry framework standard created by Apple in the 1990s for compound documents, intended as an alternative to Microsoft's proprietary Object Linking and Embedding (OLE).[1] It is one of Apple's earliest experiments with open standards and collaborative development methods with other companies. OpenDoc development was transferred to the non-profit Component Integration Laboratories, Inc. (CI Labs), owned by a growing team of major corporate backers and effectively starting an industry consortium. In 1992, the historic AIM alliance launched between Apple, IBM, and Motorola—with OpenDoc as a foundation. With the return of Steve Jobs to Apple, OpenDoc was discontinued in March 1997.
[...]
>After three years of development on OpenDoc itself, the first OpenDoc-based product release was Apple's CyberDog web browser in May 1996. The second was on August 1, 1996, of IBM's two packages of OpenDoc components for OS/2, available on the Club OpenDoc website for a 30 day free trial: the Person Pak is "components aimed at organizing names, addresses, and other personal information", for use with personal information management (PIM) applications, at $229; and the Table Pak "to store rows and columns in a database file" at $269. IBM then anticipated the release of 50 more components by the end of 1996.[7]
WWDC 1996 Cyberdog demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhiUncy5qW0
Steve Jobs put a bullet in Open Doc's head, and defended his decision at WWDC '97:
https://donhopkins.medium.com/focusing-is-about-saying-no-st...
“Focusing is about saying no.” -Steve Jobs, WWDC ‘97
As sad as it was, Steve Jobs was right to “put a bullet in OpenDoc’s head”.
Jobs explained (and performed) his side of the story in this fascinating and classic WWDC’97 video: “Focusing is about saying no.”
"Focusing is about saying no" - Steve Jobs (WWDC'97)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8eP99neOVs
Steve Jobs Insult Response - Highest Quality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o
>Steve Jobs handling a tough question at the 1997 Worldwide Developer Conference. He had just returned to Apple as an advisor and was guiding sweeping change at the company. The full video is here - [original video taken down by Apple - new link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnO7D5UaDig ] - this interactions is at 50:25.
I highly recommend taking the time to watch the entire WWDC 1997 video -- it is historically profound.
Steve Jobs walked on stage and announced he wanted to take questions from the audience, right after his return to Apple from NeXT and the sweeping changes he made.
Some of the best most difficult questions really made him stop and think before speaking, and he delivered frank fascinating answers.
We all know what happened next, but it's amazing to hear how deeply and confidently he thought about it before it happened.
WWDC 1997: Steve Jobs about Apple's future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnO7D5UaDig
>Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in the San Jose Convention Center (May 13-16) was the first show after the purchase of NeXT, and focused on the efforts to use OpenStep as the foundation of the next Mac OS. The plan at that time was to introduce a new system then known as Rhapsody, which would consist of a version of OpenStep modified with a more Mac-like look and feel, the Yellow Box, along with a Blue Box that allowed existing Mac applications to run under OS emulation.
>The show focused primarily on the work in progress, including a short history of the development efforts since the two development teams had been merged on February 4. Several new additions to the system were also demonstrated, including tabbed and outline views, and a new object-based graphics layer (NSBezier). Source: wikipedia.org
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can, but who does?
I think the point is that React is a true programming language with syntactic sugar to make it look templates, vs templates that bolt on some language.
React is just JS as any other app using JS with templating. I really fail to see the benefit with the React approach. If anything it makes it more difficult to have a 100% match between design and the end product.
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#127I guess we’re in the “orange” site right now. What is the “red” site?
"Red" is a synonym for Orange in many places; or they could be referring to Blind or perhaps some Subreddit?
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#128> What's really frustrating about all this is how passive and helpless the current generation of web developers seem to be in all this. It's as if they've all been lulled into complacency by convenience. They seem afraid to carve out their own ambitious paths, and lack serious gusto for engineering. If there isn't a "friendly" bot spewing encouraging messages with plenty of emoji at every turn, they won't engage. > A…
Things used to require much more competency. For instance, I've been looking at old Byte Magazine issues on archive.org Let's take November 1982. Here's an article on building a video digitizer ( https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1982-11/page/n175/... ) complete with circuit diagrams, signal examples, and a control program in 6502 assembly. Hobbyist magazine. For enthusiasts. If I had a candidate that did thi…
> Dev work has gotten too abstract and covered in bullshit.
That's a reflection of modern business (especially tech).
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#129The fundamental flaw of this article is that React as far as I know never claimed to solve all these issues. React mainly handles state and rendering. It is also a common crticism of React. The opposite is a common crticism of Angular. Maybe the article should have been about Angular.
Re: Get in zoomer, we're saving React
#130I wonder about this: > A templating language ... targets a weird imagined archetype of someone who isn't allergic to code, but somehow isn't smart enough to work in a genuine programming language. In my experience, this archetype doesn't actually exist. In my day job, I write "sequences" to command a spacecraft, in a neutered "sequencing language" with conditionals but no looping. Several people on our team who are g…
Creating ways for people to interact and control a computer by writing but who don’t need to know about deploying to production, scaling databases, managing memory resources, etc, seems like a good division of labor.
There are two forces at work here when this division of labor disappears: 1.) increasing complexity in the tool designed for non-computer engineers and 2.) the subtleties of a class of worker who don’t want to do literal manual labor like typing in SQL.
At many firms it seems as if there is a layer of operations that is only capable of interacting with a CRUD UI, constricted either by ability or tooling.
That is, there is a pressure from management to split a firm in two: those that code and those that do not. This means that even something as simple as making updates to a CRUD interface is entwined with the the rest of the engineering practices.
Case in point: computer engineers writing SQL at the behest of some other entity at a firm who is not capable or allowed or even encouraged to learn or understand SQL.