A large contingent of webdevs seem to think that fast means “best-case fast.”“Our web sites are fast on expensive hardware and from reliable fiber networks.”Worst-case fast is a much more meaningful, impressive, and inclusive claim to make! Fast on low...
-
Marijke Luttekesreplied to Marijke Luttekes on last edited by [email protected]
@julian Salespeople didn’t care because quality and accessibility does not make direct money.
Many developers don’t care because we live in an era where craftsmanship isn’t being appreciated anyway.
(This is a big generalization, so take it with a grain of salt).
To quote myself from a recent article:
“[…] I quit front-end development years ago because of the industry's general disregard for quality and accessibility […]”
-
@[email protected] I like to think craftsmanship still exists in web development today. I certainly try to embody the thinking that "code is a craft", and my output is a representation of the code I want to use, as opposed to merely a means to an end.
That said, I am fortunate that I am able to work on open source for a living. Many others have additional pressures that cause quality to be lower down in the priority list.
-
Marijke Luttekesreplied to Marijke Luttekes on last edited by
@julian Also, you raise good points, I’ve got to think about this and also finally write a blog post about this whole thing.
I’m just very salty about the state of the web that I used to love so much.
-
@julian Code is craft but not everyone can afford craft. It feels like we’ve been in the same transition as when couture clothes were succeeded in popularity by pret-a-porter.
And lets be real, not everyone needs craftsmanship, so the idea of frameworks is great (and IMO still preferable to AI).
However, those frameworks are currently not great, and some are being maintained by assholes; not the best advocates for humanity.
-
@[email protected] industry keeps iterating on frameworks hoping that the next one will finally be the silver bullet. I think that's a great goal to work towards, but it's unfortunate that you have hoards of devs chasing the latest head-first while ignoring the foundations, only to be caught off guard when the lib/framework-du-jour suddenly isn't "it" anymore.
Suddenly your marketable skills aren't marketable anymore — been there, done that.
It doesn't stop people from asking @[email protected] to adopt React, though. Before that it was Angular. Before that it was the even older Angular v1. There might've been a couple in between I forgot about.
Some days I wonder how many contributions I've missed out on because we didn't meet devs where they were at, but the technical debt to pivot to a new framework likely would vastly outweigh them by several orders of magnitude...
-
@julian @nodebb This is why I like Django as a back-end framework: it might be old and not as flashy as something new, but it’s been stable for years. I can live with not having the Newest Awesomest Shit Ever
️ immediately if that means I don’t have to switch frameworks every few years. (Django even has LTS versions).The JS framework landscape and it’s constant flux is expensive in the long run, like you indicate above.
-
@groxx well said!
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Tushar Chauhan on last edited by
@tchauhan React has shown itself to be pretty slow! That said, there is a spectrum of React tooling. I’d rate Astro > Gatsby > Next.js for fast outputs of React stuff
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Maikel 🇪🇺 on last edited by
@maikel They still exist, yeah
-
@eloy @slightlyoff @mahryekuh @bobmonsour @zachleat @phae @owa Exactly. Use JS only for when CSS isn't able to do what you are trying to do.
Corollary: If CSS isn't doing something you're trying to do, you should think long and hard about why you're doing it, and if it's really a good idea...
-
@ubergeek @eloy @slightlyoff @bobmonsour @zachleat @phae @owa Progressive enhancement FTW.
