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

HTML First

html-first.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 551 posts

Re: HTML First

#61

Post by ralmidani »

gemstones wrote: post #29

Can the people that want this HTML-first world style it to look the ways they want themselves? My experience has been that proponents of HTMX and the like skew heavily backend and never feel comfortable with CSS. Why listen to UX thoughts from a population who are scared of UX?

I’m not able to make a page look nice (or even decent) without a CSS framework. But I think I’m at least OK at understanding how to make the interactions and workflows follow the “Principle of Least Astonishment”.

In other words, I’m not scared of UX in general, just not confident in my current abilities in UI (which is just one aspect of UX).

Re: HTML First

#62

Post by [deleted] »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #52

It is so much easier and faster to build web apps using TypeScript, Vite and React (or any other similar stack) rather than vanilla JS. I find this “leveraging the extreme simplicity” effort wholly misguided. It’s neither “enjoyable” nor “seamless” to manually synchronise the backend, the frontend logic and the DOM of your app without frameworks. And maybe the trite talking point of helping young developers by sendin…

[deleted]

Re: HTML First

#63

Post by vorticalbox »

FFP999 wrote: post #57
xhrpost wrote: post #54

> Where possible, default to defining style and behaviour with inline HTML attributes Wow, have we just come full circle after 25 years?

I literally--literally, not figuratively--facepalmed when I read this.

This comment or that part in the link?

Re: HTML First

#64

Post by [deleted] »

xhrpost wrote: post #54

> Where possible, default to defining style and behaviour with inline HTML attributes Wow, have we just come full circle after 25 years?

[deleted]

Re: HTML First

#65

Post by dartos »

1shooner wrote: post #45
ricardobeat wrote: post #2

“Locality of behaviour” is such a poorly defined rule. It’s just an invented name for going against separation of concerns. Calling CSS “spooky action at a distance” is a massive stretch too. Good principles here but the arguments are quite weak and could be much simpler.

Tailwind is a build step with just as much 'spooky action at a distance'. If it wasn't, we'd just use inline CSS. With Tailwind you're trusting a 3rd party library to abstract the CSS spec for you, and for that abstracted quasi-spec to be followed by your build configuration.

I think there are some other benefits of tailwind. Say you have a set of css classes for different components.

Then say one component on one page now needs to be styled differently.

You have 3 options: 1. Create a whole new class which duplicates much of the previous class 2. Create a smaller class which is intended to override some rules from the first class 3. Factor out the common styles into smaller classes.

All have some maintainability concerns, but taking the 3rd option to the extreme makes the problem non existent in the first place.

That’s the real strength of tailwind. Preventing a critical mass of one off styles from making your whole css setup unmanageable

Re: HTML First

#67

Post by jonkoops »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #52

It is so much easier and faster to build web apps using TypeScript, Vite and React (or any other similar stack) rather than vanilla JS. I find this “leveraging the extreme simplicity” effort wholly misguided. It’s neither “enjoyable” nor “seamless” to manually synchronise the backend, the frontend logic and the DOM of your app without frameworks. And maybe the trite talking point of helping young developers by sendin…

I agree in principle that HTML is the best option for a good user-experience, but it quickly breaks down in terms of developer-experience and maintainability. However, we don't need to compromise on either by using a solution like Qwik[1]. Where the page progressively becomes more interactive with JavaScript, and doing as much work as possible on the server beforehand.

1. https://qwik.builder.io/

Re: HTML First

#68

Post by dartos »

Jtsummers wrote: post #23

This one confuses me: > Where libraries are necessary, use libraries that leverage html attributes over libraries built around javascript or custom syntax And then they demo using _hyperscript [0] as encouraged. However, that's a library built around a custom syntax. It's only using an HTML attribute to encode a script that's in a new language you need to learn. Is this serious? [0] https://hyperscript.org

I think hyperscript has some people trying to hype it up bc it’s related to HTMX, but imo is more of a fun novelty.

Re: HTML First

#69

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

HTML should have been improved by now. What is sad is that fundamental things like a put request through a form can't still be done by simply a method. Keeping html hobbled is literally a conspiracy.
Post reply on HN