Why is Frontend Such a nightmare? I don't think i can even call this coding. 90% of it, is switching between files and DOM manipulation. Also why are there so many frameworks for everything.
>>109598273Millennials created this stuff and coding skipped millennials.
How old is JSON now?>still no universally supported comment syntax>still no equivalent to XSD
>>109598273>90% of it, is switching between filesskill issue. your setup should make navigating between files virtually frictionless.>why are there so many frameworks for everythingso you don't have to do>DOM manipulationfrontend is pisseasy nowadays.you can go plain html and css with a nice css framework like Bulma.or if you need an SPA I recommend Vue + a component framework like Vuetify.>>109598314>>still no universally supported comment syntaxuse case? imagine if codemonkeys littered JSON payloads with comments.
>>109598273It’s buttery smooth and easy if you use the three technologies in your pic exclusively.
>>109598403If you're going to use JSON for config files, you absolutely need comments.
Peeps still do frontend manually?I thought AI does all that shit perfectly now if you just say a few words or upload an image
i don't see what exactly is a nightmare about it.
>>109598273it is only a nightmare once you add a fucking build step to it.
>>109598273>Why is front end such a nightmareYou have to support every image formatYou have to support every resolutionYou have to use whatever framework your boss heard was goodYou have to deal with dependencies made by strangers that are not written to any kind of standard.You have to deal with a language that was always meant to be a bandaid solution but got widely adopted as the global standard instead.You have to deal with the language standards which change so your boss yells at you when you use var instead of let and you are not using arrow notation because it's a gay shortcut that makes code unpleasant to readYou have to adopt clean code practices to make up for all the syntactic shortcomings and fuckery of the language.You actually have to learn 3 languages just to make a webpage that doesn't look like it's from 1998You have to use APIs from multiple sources on the internet which also don't confirm to a standard, even the REST standard only mitigates this marginallyAnd finally, Indians.Web shitters aught to celebrating that AI can do all of this now
>>109598273Someone decided it was a good idea to use software made to render documents with links to instead run whole applications. Then we tried to standardize and formalize stuff in a proper way, only for everyone to just copy whatever mess the current trending big company was doing, which is what we've been doing ever since. There's zero chance any of this ends up intentionally good, if it ever does it's because we got lucky.
>>109598596That's not what JSON is for. You should be using TOML for that.>>109598273Use tailwind and SolidJS and you only have to touch typescript ever again. You don't need more.
>>109600296>tailwind>SolidJS>typescripthow to turn frontend into a nightmare and more!
Quasar is not bad
>>109600360It's so easy to spot people who have never used tailwind, lol.
>>109600422and I never will, it is antithesis to having clean css code."having inline style tags is bad!""but if we make a functional equivalent to that to dump inside class attribute it's good!"no, it's just inline style tag with extra steps.
>>109600446>I have strong opinions about things I've never used>having inline style tags is badOk, midwit.
>>109600458I don't have to taste shit to avoid it. seeing 3 MB file of class styles replicating every css property was enough.
>>109600465Unfortunately for you, that's not how tailwind works. Also unfortunately for you, tailwind is consistently more performant than regular CSS.Unfortunate.
>>109600489>adding another abstraction layer between browser and your webpage is more performantlol ok
>>109600497There is no abstraction layer. The CSS is also typically much smaller because there's less repetition.It's funny because I also thought tailwind was a meme once. I see myself from a year ago in your replies.
>>109598403cant you use jsonx
>>109600507I see now that my info about tailwind was outdated. they don't have a huge CSS file for no-build anymore as it was too embarrassing.instead, they have a JS file for generating that CSS on the fly according to the classes you use.in their ideal use case, with a build step, it makes you that CSS to package statically.but still, nothing beats hand-crafted CSS and without a build step, not by size, not by performance.
>>109598273The What (the fuck) Working Group has yet to admit that the "living standard" is an even dumber idea than semantic html. All the stupid design mistakes will be around forever, every browser will be incomplete forever, websites will always be broken, the baggage will grow year after year, because they're afraid of maintaining two versions of software.
>>109598273You are such a fuckin retard.
>>109599903Build steps build character, kiddo.
>>109600771no, it only makes you dependent on more tools.
>>109598273my friend opus makes frontend a very pleasant experience
>>109599903This, 100% times. If your webapp requires a build step you lost my respect. The only acceptable buildstep is upon deployment and even there it's only to potentially minify assets, concatenate js/css with imports into one file and rename files to reset cache, like Rails used to do with sprockets. But in dev it should absolutely not have any buid step. And yes, you can absolutely have a frontend framework that doesn't need a build step, but retards who invented React, Vue and Svelte couldn't figure out how.
>>109598273html is cool ):
>>109598273html css js is cool if you dont try to overengineer it with typescript tailwind and 10 frameworksi wish stuff like web components where good though, you cant easily reuse components without using a templating system
are you people actually writing frontend code?At this point I don't even read the frontend code the agent generates, it's literally not even worth looking at
>>109602381Frontend is my favourite part, I would never want to slop it.>>109599903How else are you supposed to deal with code duplication? I guess you can SSR that shit but it's better to do what can be done at compile-time, at compile-time.
because youre simultaneously creating a high latency realtime application for an unknown number of browsers of unknown versions running at any number of arbitrary resolutions or orientations that all have their own behaviors and require polyfills and backports to get anywhere near decent feature coverage.
>>109602428at which part are you getting code duplication?css you can restructure, especially with the newfangled nested css.js you can obviously refactor.html can be done either server-side or client-side, but if you insist in plain no-js no-server scripting then I think you're allowed to run a site generator, as a treat.
>>109602937The navbar. Which is similar in multiple pages.I'll need to move the site to a pure SPA at some point so live calls don't get disconnected. Still might keep the macro system so I don't have all the code crammed into one file.
>>109602955you could probably move navbar into an iframe with links with target="_parent"but yeah, if you're going for a single page anyway, js will solve it.
