Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Show HN: A VSCode Extension to edit HTML visually in real-time

    (github.com)
    231 points urin | 12 comments | 14 Oct 24 01:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.637s | source | bottom
    Show context
    vivzkestrel ◴[14 Oct 24 03:52 UTC] No.41834021[source]▶
    Are we trying to reinvent web development? Last few years have been wild. We abandoned HTML CSS and JS websites that used to work just fine and ran after frontend component frameworks and now the circle is getting completed by building tools and extensions we had 20 yrs ago
    replies(8): >>41834134 #>>41834511 #>>41834787 #>>41834938 #>>41835473 #>>41838662 #>>41839707 #>>41861399 #
    stevage ◴[14 Oct 24 06:59 UTC] No.41834938[source]▶
    >We abandoned HTML CSS and JS websites that used to work just fine

    Hmm. Have you actually done much web development in the last 10 years?

    Building websites with raw HTML, CSS and JS 10 years ago was very much not "just fine". There's a reason frameworks were invented.

    replies(5): >>41834974 #>>41835106 #>>41836202 #>>41837654 #>>41886661 #
    1. oneeyedpigeon ◴[14 Oct 24 07:05 UTC] No.41834974[source]▶
    What do you consider "not fine" about websites written in "just" html, CSS, and js?
    replies(4): >>41835042 #>>41835502 #>>41837471 #>>41842234 #
    2. 0xFACEFEED ◴[14 Oct 24 07:17 UTC] No.41835042[source]▶
    1) Rats nest of non-declarative JavaScript.

    2) Rats nest of JavaScript callbacks.

    3) Overlapping stylesheets with !important everywhere.

    4) Elements used for style not their semantic purpose (<b>, <strong>)

    5) Subtle and not-so-subtle browser compatibility issues.

    replies(3): >>41835110 #>>41835515 #>>41843636 #
    3. bugtodiffer ◴[14 Oct 24 07:30 UTC] No.41835110[source]▶
    5) is the only valid reason, the rest has comparable alternative shitty things when using whatever framework
    replies(1): >>41835139 #
    4. 0xFACEFEED ◴[14 Oct 24 07:34 UTC] No.41835139{3}[source]▶
    No amount of discipline was going to make medium-large websites maintainable back then. Today it's actually possible if the creators know what they're doing. Tooling isn't going to prevent people from doing stupid things.
    5. netdevnet ◴[14 Oct 24 08:39 UTC] No.41835502[source]▶
    You can't reuse pieces of UI functionality (a bundle of specific html, css and js) unless did copypasta which is obviously awful. Sharing business logic across different areas of an application becomes much harder and you can't non-trivially write and run tests across areas of your application because you are just using html,css and js. And the big monster: state. Sharing state safely across different areas of an application becomes much harder. You end up writing your own micro framework trying to make all the above work. At that point you might as well use as existing battle-tested one
    replies(2): >>41835686 #>>41845735 #
    6. netdevnet ◴[14 Oct 24 08:42 UTC] No.41835515[source]▶
    I agree with HTML+CSS+JS websites being not fine. But to be honest, js callbacks are more of a language thing than a framework thing. You don't need to use frameworks to write promises.
    7. oneeyedpigeon ◴[14 Oct 24 09:09 UTC] No.41835686[source]▶
    So, instead of "Building websites...", would it be fairer to say "Building some types of web app..."?
    8. stevage ◴[14 Oct 24 13:45 UTC] No.41837471[source]▶
    Using them was fine. but developing them, no. It's way more work just managing event handlers for a start.
    9. asdf000333 ◴[14 Oct 24 21:29 UTC] No.41842234[source]▶
    mainly the CSS
    10. wyclif ◴[15 Oct 24 00:16 UTC] No.41843636[source]▶
    Also: using JS for things where HTML and CSS would have been sufficient, creating some of the issues above.
    replies(1): >>41849319 #
    11. pjmlp ◴[15 Oct 24 07:05 UTC] No.41845735[source]▶
    Sure you can, Web Components exist now, and SSR components exist for 25 years across all main languages.
    12. mediumsmart ◴[15 Oct 24 14:59 UTC] No.41849319{3}[source]▶
    this ^ - and if js at all, then only using a subset which passes jslint.com without any errors or warnings. that the score of any site should be

    100 100 100 100 1.1s max paint (mobile) 0ms block 0.0xx max shift A+ headers 0 errors and 0 contrast errors webaim goes without saying of course