Ah, memories. http://blueprintcss.org/
Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
131–140 of 214 posts
Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#132Hi all, I work at Palantir and worked on Blueprint (although I'm currently working on a different project). Happy to answer any questions you have about it. Just a note - we didn't intend to heavily publicize the project quite yet. For example, the docs site is still a WIP, so apologies if it causes issues for you on mobile devices.
Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#133Unfortunately, mobile support is not on the roadmap: https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/105#issuecommen...
Presumably since React Native a solid mobile alternative, but shouldn't 2016-vintage web UI frameworks be responsive?
I guess if you're a big company like Palantir, you have the resources to do native mobile, so I see why they aren't making it a priority.
Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#134Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#135I see a few comments bringing up mobile. There's already many mobile-friendly UI frameworks; not everything has to be mobile-first. Yes, in many cases it makes sense to go for a mobile-first approach, especially with consumer-facing applications. Mobile is huge and apparently it's still continuing to grow. At the same time, there's many legitimate cases in which you want to optimize for desktop. For example: consider…
But for external projects/webpages in 2016, where atleast 1/3 of usage can come from mobile devices, having a lack of mobile support is a complete, 100% nonstarter. And there are plenty of competing React UI frameworks with mobile support already.
Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#136Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#137Unfortunately, mobile support is not on the roadmap: https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/105#issuecommen...
> Just as a caution though, the library, in general, is intended for desktop web applications. We haven't made mobile-compatibility a priority https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jasonkillian Presumably since React Native a solid mobile alternative, but shouldn't 2016-vintage web UI frameworks be responsive? I guess if you're a big company like Palantir, you have the resources to do native mobile, so I see why they…
Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#138Since you guys are taking a lot of insults here I want to try and offer you something constructive. Having bugs is ok. Failing at mobile and performance is not. It melts away your credibility because doing these things right is table stakes. This is all compounded by the fact that it's a toolkit that serves as base for other developers, rather than just a slow app. Finally, your flippant response to criticism gives t…
Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#139Re: Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web
#140ReactJS enlightened web developers with Component based functional/thinking/development model, which brought some order in front-end UI development. And it has been one of the best things with community behind it. Having worked with both Desktop UI (Swing/GTK) and Server based UI toolkits (JSF), the value of ReactJS is a standard Component Life cycle. I would propose having a ReactUI component specification with a st…
Some of us were out in the wilderness building GWT components back in 2009/2010. And although compiling to JS was a pretty weird option at the time, it mostly worked. Your app looked terrible if you just cobbled together GWT's default components, but if you built your own components with custom CSS, you could end up with a really nice looking application. We even used immutability and one-way data flow where we could, though it wasn't culturally ingrained the way it is in the React community.
I understand why GWT idn't become mainstream. Java was really disliked in the JS community, even more than it is now. But having a big, maintainable web app using DI and all other sorts of fun things was actually kind of fun 6-7 years ago. I like React and Angular 2 better now, though.