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

The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

paulmakeswebsites.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 351 posts

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#341

Post by jauntywundrkind »

elktown wrote: post #336
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find litigating this to be useful or interesting. Debating what is needed could show us lots of things we could cut. But would that bring real gain? SPA's have really nice performance characteristics. Code is all loaded. The page can transition between states rather than total redraw. A good SPA should offer the same capabilities too, ought have URL routing and good history support. I do think the web would b…

> I don't find litigating this to be useful or interesting. I think it is useful because our field is woefully inept at anything resembling backtracking, and it's having concrete detrimental effects all over the field by, for example, increasing mountains of bloat eating up hardware improvements. > SPA's have really nice performance characteristics. [..] A good SPA should offer the same capabilities too The problem i…

What you say sounds like we ought have suffocated and starved the web. I feel like "vague" and "subjective" is actually just pretty fucking obvious, didn't need a ton of support for it: the web is the go-to platform for app development because its featureful and works everywhere and is connected by default and nothing else comes close.

The web is where it is (literally everywhere) because it is capable and powerful, and it's because we didn't listen to retrogressive gate keepers insisting the web shouldnt really be for those uses cases.

The alternative to this is nothing. Is to not have had connected software. But we aspired to make great systems. That made some people very mad.

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#342

Post by ehnto »

curtisblaine wrote: post #176
stevepotter wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I encourage young devs to build a complex app using vanilla js. Feel the pain of two way state management. Then you’ll gain an appreciation for react. And you’ll learn browser APIs and know when react is overkill because it has its own pain

It's not even the young devs. It looks like most of those complaining are back end developers who "rarely tinker with frontend" but think they can teach everyone else how to make it simple because "it should be static forms". A great example of all-world-is-a-nail stance mixed with extreme hubris.

I did spend a serious amount of commercial time developing fronted UIs in React, Angular, and the before times in vanilla JS/css. I even wrote my own UI framework in Web Components, developed my own CSS framework used by an agency churning out projects for years. You get the idea, I did the thing, commercially, for over a decade. React and Angular are absolutely more complex in practice. That's fine, if you want the features go ham. But you don't need them, and most people mis-use the power and end up with a slow complex mess.

Perhaps those same people would have a slow complex mess in vanilla tools too though, so maybe React is a scapegoat like PHP was, and Javascript was.

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#343

Post by elktown »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #341
elktown wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't find litigating this to be useful or interesting. I think it is useful because our field is woefully inept at anything resembling backtracking, and it's having concrete detrimental effects all over the field by, for example, increasing mountains of bloat eating up hardware improvements. > SPA's have really nice performance characteristics. [..] A good SPA should offer the same capabilities too The problem i…

What you say sounds like we ought have suffocated and starved the web. I feel like "vague" and "subjective" is actually just pretty fucking obvious, didn't need a ton of support for it: the web is the go-to platform for app development because its featureful and works everywhere and is connected by default and nothing else comes close. The web is where it is (literally everywhere) because it is capable and powerful,…

Nothing of that requires SPA, and the alternative is certainly not “nothing”. Not sure how you even get to that conclusion, strange rant. The meaning of alternative cost is not standing still.

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#344

Post by another_twist »

jwxz wrote: post #294
diordiderot wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would recommend comparing to https://next-faster.vercel.app/ NextFaster feels faster than McMaster IMHO

~$500 for hosting that site feels insane to me [0]. I feel like a single $10 VPS could handle that load. [0] https://github.com/ethanniser/NextFaster?tab=readme-ov-file#...

The extra 490 saved isnt worth the optimization. headache

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#345

Post by fud101 »

davely wrote: post #296
thedelanyo wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and have genuinely enjoyed it. People who haven't work with other frameworks like svelte, Vue - normally say they are enjoying React.

This is a bit reductive. For what it’s worth, I’ve used Vue and don’t like it (stuff like custom directives that are nonstandard html, not as explicit about event handling and data flow, etc). I’ve seen a lot of buzz (particularly on HN) about Svelte but have lacked the motivation to try it.

I wish more people would criticise Svelte but most people just don't care because it's irrelevant. It's like complaining about Backbone or something, not worth the effort.

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#346

Post by [deleted] »

gf000 wrote: post #253
strogonoff wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did it not work? Many successful and complex sites and apps use React—whether directly or via a framework (Next, Astro, or something homegrown)—and indeed many frameworks are built on React. > math tools or pdf generation In this case the original scope of the library was “reactive rendering”, which sort of makes sense.

It worked as in react is the de facto frontend choice. It didn't work as in if I were to ask for the router, state management, etc library, there would be a combinatorial explosion of react "frameworks", all sucking in different ways. I am (and supposedly grandparent also) on the option that react leaves out way too much that would still be well in the scope of a 'UI framework', and while modularity can be a good thi…

[deleted]

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#347

Post by jauntywundrkind »

elktown wrote: post #343
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say sounds like we ought have suffocated and starved the web. I feel like "vague" and "subjective" is actually just pretty fucking obvious, didn't need a ton of support for it: the web is the go-to platform for app development because its featureful and works everywhere and is connected by default and nothing else comes close. The web is where it is (literally everywhere) because it is capable and powerful,…

Nothing of that requires SPA, and the alternative is certainly not “nothing”. Not sure how you even get to that conclusion, strange rant. The meaning of alternative cost is not standing still.

> Nothing of that requires SPA, and the alternative is certainly not “nothing”.

Yes actually dev teams did have a massive leap in capability with dynamic HTML & updating the page.

> Not sure how you even get to that conclusion, strange rant.

Not sure how you even can miss that shift, strange miss.

(So, uh, do you always have to be such a deorgatory shit that I have to turn your crap faced mean shit back around? Can you talk like not a flaming shit bag? I don't super love turning your shitty mean crap ass personally aggressive negative worded words back at you, but you just have no vision & are ongoingly a mean shit about everything & so personally shitty about how you phrase things? And you are in such obvious denial. In ways that make zero sense. I don't think anyone sees how the web would grow while meeting your ridiculous constraints and that just seems obvious. Whatever third way you are trying to advocate for is clear as mud. And you cover for saying nothing with aggression! But mostly just stop being such an aggressive ass & engage like you can get over yourself, pull your head out of your ass, stop being a belittling shit, and make a God damned case, rather than throwing endless more empty bile.)

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#348

Post by elktown »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #347
elktown wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing of that requires SPA, and the alternative is certainly not “nothing”. Not sure how you even get to that conclusion, strange rant. The meaning of alternative cost is not standing still.

> Nothing of that requires SPA, and the alternative is certainly not “nothing”. Yes actually dev teams did have a massive leap in capability with dynamic HTML & updating the page. > Not sure how you even get to that conclusion, strange rant. Not sure how you even can miss that shift, strange miss. (So, uh, do you always have to be such a deorgatory shit that I have to turn your crap faced mean shit back around? Can y…

[flagged]

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#349

Post by thunderfork »

jamincan wrote: post #248
bandrami wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly given that on a screen reader -- which yes is an example of a browser -- it doesn't "look like" anything at all

I think accessibility is one area where some of these components libraries can be helpful as they automatically include a11y features that might otherwise be ignored.

So many of these component libraries get a11y wrong, actually (or don't even try - mat-ui select comes with a big "don't use this" warning label)

Re: The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

#350

Post by rrr_oh_man »

mb2100 wrote: post #271
benrutter wrote: post #22

This radio selection is brilliant silly, especially because the end result is indecipherable from a vanilla css rqdio button. For some reason people keep going back to complex UI and interactivity frameworks though, does anyone have a good example of a large website built without all this bloat? Asking because I've seen hundreds of small sites built with elegance and simplicity, and few large ones. Is it just inevita…

As company size grows, managers want to settle on a "standardized" tech stack that doesn't get in the way when they want to hire and fire people at will. Nobody was ever fired for choosing React (or IBM). But everyone can get fired when they're working on a React app.

> Nobody was ever fired for choosing React. But everyone can get fired when they're working on a React app.

Beautifully put.

Post reply on HN