Re:Writing an app is like coding for LaserDisc
by ravenstine on Monday September 05, 2022 @10:11AM
(#32724484)
> As a platform for developing interactive applications the web is simply terrible.
This is where you lose me. For such a "terrible" platform, it sure has a lot of users now, don't it? Maybe you mean from a developer's perspective, and it's not unreasonable that someone might consider web tech terrible, so I'd be interested to know why they see it that way.
> There is no good way to develop a UI in HTML/CSS/JS
Nonsense. Most UIs suck in general. On the web, they suck a little more because HTML/CSS/JS have such a low barrier to entry, and the industry requires very little intellectual rigor that would cause one to think twice about "just npm install that shit, bruh." Despite that, there's no sensible reason why a "good" UI can't be built with web tech. The web is what you make of it.
> all attempts to do so rely on layers upon layers of wat are essentially hacks
You're going to have to explain what makes working within the confines of a webpage a "hack." Sometimes we create workarounds, but everything may need workarounds.
> to build something resembling a UI toolkit
It is a UI toolkit.
> on top of a document markup language.
Which many people agree is well suited for describing UIs, whether it's HTML or something else.
> The result a UI that is unnecessarily complicated and fragile.
The cause not being something wrong with webpages, but the choices developers make and the way organizations approach software development. Give me a fragile web app and I'll show you a fragile and hard to work with native codebase.
> Laying out and rendering HTML and CSS is incredibly complex
It's as complex as you make it out to be. None of what's on a webpage has to be complex. We make it complex because of a lack of actual engineering mindset and because HTML/CSS is relatively abstract and forgiving. If one doesn't prefer something that's forgiving, they can work with native code or something that transpiles to HTML/CSS. Doesn't mean HTML and CSS aren't capable of performing the job they've been doing for almost my entire lifetime now.
> compared how traditional UI toolkits do the same task.
Depends on the task. Depends on the toolkit.
> That complexity comes at a cost, both in development time and in UX.
As already stated, that complexity comes from no one but the developer. Given reasonable time, a developer should be able to build most UIs using web tech and have it working as intended. HTML, CSS, and even JS aren't really what most people consider complex about web development. What's insanely complex about modern web development, that people frequently complain about, is everything we've done to turn web development into Java development (i.e. a churn of build steps, toolchains, transpilers, runtimes, and so on).
This is where you lose me. For such a "terrible" platform, it sure has a lot of users now, don't it? Maybe you mean from a developer's perspective, and it's not unreasonable that someone might consider web tech terrible, so I'd be interested to know why they see it that way.
> There is no good way to develop a UI in HTML/CSS/JS
Nonsense. Most UIs suck in general. On the web, they suck a little more because HTML/CSS/JS have such a low barrier to entry, and the industry requires very little intellectual rigor that would cause one to think twice about "just npm install that shit, bruh." Despite that, there's no sensible reason why a "good" UI can't be built with web tech. The web is what you make of it.
> all attempts to do so rely on layers upon layers of wat are essentially hacks
You're going to have to explain what makes working within the confines of a webpage a "hack." Sometimes we create workarounds, but everything may need workarounds.
> to build something resembling a UI toolkit
It is a UI toolkit.
> on top of a document markup language.
Which many people agree is well suited for describing UIs, whether it's HTML or something else.
> The result a UI that is unnecessarily complicated and fragile.
The cause not being something wrong with webpages, but the choices developers make and the way organizations approach software development. Give me a fragile web app and I'll show you a fragile and hard to work with native codebase.
> Laying out and rendering HTML and CSS is incredibly complex
It's as complex as you make it out to be. None of what's on a webpage has to be complex. We make it complex because of a lack of actual engineering mindset and because HTML/CSS is relatively abstract and forgiving. If one doesn't prefer something that's forgiving, they can work with native code or something that transpiles to HTML/CSS. Doesn't mean HTML and CSS aren't capable of performing the job they've been doing for almost my entire lifetime now.
> compared how traditional UI toolkits do the same task.
Depends on the task. Depends on the toolkit.
> That complexity comes at a cost, both in development time and in UX.
As already stated, that complexity comes from no one but the developer. Given reasonable time, a developer should be able to build most UIs using web tech and have it working as intended. HTML, CSS, and even JS aren't really what most people consider complex about web development. What's insanely complex about modern web development, that people frequently complain about, is everything we've done to turn web development into Java development (i.e. a churn of build steps, toolchains, transpilers, runtimes, and so on).