Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by hu3 on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:17AM
(#46689681)
https://www.mcmaster.com
2022 post about it. 1400 points. ~500 comments:
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by benrutter on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @09:09AM
(#46691974)
Not the prettiest but absolutely amazing to use! I'm sure web devs are laughing at me right now, but I genuinely didn't realise websites with that many images etc could actually be that fast.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by diordiderot on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @10:29AM
(#46692804)
I would recommend comparing to
https://next-faster.vercel.app/
NextFaster feels faster than McMaster IMHO
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by jwxz on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @12:59PM
(#46695372)
~$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#...
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by another_twist on Thursday January 22, 2026 @04:06AM
(#46716836)
The extra 490 saved isnt worth the optimization. headache
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by hu3 on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:06PM
(#46697750)
Can't agree. That website is much simpler. Just a static list of images and text.
There's no complex, dynamic filter. And no special rendering per type of item.
It's a glorified tumbler.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by yellow_lead on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:03AM
(#46689592)
> does anyone have a good example of a large website built without all this bloat?
How about this one?
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by teaearlgraycold on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:13AM
(#46689664)
Don’t think it counts
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by rrr_oh_man on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:25AM
(#46689753)
Why not?
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by 946789987649 on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:33AM
(#46689826)
I'm assuming they're asking for large in terms of complexity, not in terms of popularity.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by Levitz on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @04:49AM
(#46689977)
Because this site is only "large" in the context of userbase. It could be developed by a single guy in what, a week? Two tops?
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by Bishonen88 on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @05:21AM
(#46690240)
With LLM? More like within Day(s).
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by rustystump on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @03:43AM
(#46689419)
Cant speak for shady lib specifically but yes as you grow you do find that default styling doesnt work or you want something which doesn’t exist.
The crux tho is that this usually happens in what id call web apps and not websitess. Web apps are far more complex and powerful. It is a spectrum tho and sometimes websites grow into web apps which is why people oft over engineer early on.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by SwiftyBug on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @07:28AM
(#46691110)
photopea.com is entirely written in JavaScript and as far as I know, it doesn't use any fancy JS framework.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by stevepotter on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @07:41AM
(#46691208)
We went out of business, but I made a web app for videographers to collaborate during production. Same things as frame.io. This was over 15 years ago. Frontend was pretty vanilla except relied heavily on jQuery. The main section of the app allowed you to commend on specific frames in a video. The code is split up amongst multiple files. Here is one: https://github.com/StevePotter/Takeoff/blob/main/Takeoff.Web...
Look at any of the sibling `app-productions-details*.js` files. Combined they formed a single interface. It was dicey. But damn the interface was snappy. I mean, instant. Code would have been much less these days but probably nowhere near as responsive.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by mb2100 on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @11:40AM
(#46693989)
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.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by rrr_oh_man on Saturday January 24, 2026 @01:55PM
(#46746390)
> Nobody was ever fired for choosing React. But everyone can get fired when they're working on a React app.
Beautifully put.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by cloverich on Tuesday January 20, 2026 @12:01PM
(#46694356)
Its because everyone can see UI, and many have strong opinions on it. Its always the first tragedy of the commons. In a typical tech company built on compromise, fighting the complexity is a fools errand.
Re:The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button
by port11 on Wednesday January 21, 2026 @04:42AM
(#46703255)
One major reason for this, in my past experience, is that designers push for heavily customised components. If you go back to them with “why not use the default radio button with a bit of styling?”, I’ve yet to work with a designer that would relent, the specs are always for crazy UI work.
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 inevitable that as a team size grows, someone introduces insanity? Do these tools solve an actual problem that I'm missing?