This is a terrific analysis of why frameworks exist, with nods to David Hume’s is-ought problem: the native features are what is, and the framework features are what somebody thinks ought to be.
I’ve been saying at conferences for years now that if you choose to use a framework, you need to understand that you are also taking on the philosophy and worldview of the creators of that framework. This post does a great job of explaining that.
Practice Progressive Enhancement.
Build first and foremost with forgiving technologies, declarative technologies, and forward and backward compatible coding techniques.
All content should be readable without scripting.
If it’s worth building on the web, it’s worth building it robustly, and building it to last.
Want to use all those great features that have been in landing in browsers over the past year or two? View transitions! Scroll-driven animations! So much more!
Well, your coding co-pilot is not going to going to be of any help.
Large language models, especially those on the scale of many of the most accessible, popular hosted options, take humongous datasets and long periods to train. By the time everything has been scraped and a dataset has been built, the set is on some level already obsolete. Then, before a model can reach the hands of consumers, time must be taken to train and evaluate it, and then even more to finally deploy it.
Once it has finally released, it usually remains stagnant in terms of having its knowledge updated. This creates an AI knowledge gap. A period between the present and AI’s training cutoff. This gap creates a time between when a new technology emerges and when AI systems can effectively support user needs regarding its adoption, meaning that models will not be able to service users requesting assistance with new technologies, thus disincentivising their use.
So we get this instead:
I’ve anecdotally noticed that many AI tools have a ‘preference’ for React and Tailwind when asked to tackle a web-based task, or even to create any app involving an interface at all.
I hold this truth to be self-evident: the larger the abstraction layer a web developer uses on top of web standards, the shorter the shelf life of their codebase becomes, and the more they will feel the churn.
Anselm isn’t talking about becoming a CSS wizard, but simply having an understanding of what CSS can do. I have had similar experiences to this:
In the past years I had various situations where TypeScript developers (they called themselves) approached me and asked whether I could help them out with CSS. I expected to solve a complex problem but for me — knowing CSS very well — it was always a simple, straightforward solution or code snippet.
Let’s face it, “full stack” usually means “JavaScript”—HTML and CSS aren’t considered worthy of consideration. Their loss.
I’m subscribing to this RSS feed.
Don’t replace. Augment.
A question via email…
Inside me there are two wolves. They’re both JavaScript.
Responses to my thoughts on why developers would trust third-party code more than a native browser feature.
I’m trying to understand why developers would trust third-party code more than a native browser feature.