Jason Knight

The less code you use, the less there is to break

Dec 3, 2017

I am against "Design Systems" in the idea that they come with pre-baked code and pre-existing styles they expect you to use classes to apply presentationally, resulting in the same code-bloat and double-finger to accessibility as ignorant bloated half-tweet narrishkeit frameworks.

It's just been my experience that most everything code-wise that comes pre-cooked is half-baked!

EVEN when conceptually they are filled with good ideas -- like Material Design's approach to "flat plus". It's the implementation that leaves me walking the other way.

JUST like with the dipshit trash that are front-end frameworks, that at least for HTML/CSS result in writing two to ten times the markup needed, using JavaScript to do CSS' bloody job, and as much custom CSS in most "completed" websites as you'd have WITHOUT the stupid malfing framework idiocy! Even BEST CASE the MOST you get out of it is shifting the total amount of code out of the CSS and into the HTML -- instead of fixing bloat you just shuffle it around; and at what cost? Oh, that's right, telling separation of presentation from content to go stuff it!

But then I'm a content oriented developer, meaning that to me content and functionality dictates markup, content + markup + device capabilities dictates layout and style. NOT the other way around. Starting out with what it's going to look like and slopping in classes to say WHAT it looks like instead of WHY? 100% grade A farm fresh DERP.

Hence why HTML/CSS frameworks are nothing more than going full Pakled. You never go full Pakled.

Emil Moe

Senior Data Engineer

Dec 3, 2017

You seem to be against any kind of prepared code, I wonder how it affects your productivity? The reason to use wrappers, libraries, frameworks, etc is obviously to increase productivity.

Emil Moe That's the problem, they do NOT increase productivity. HTML and CSS frameworks are a STUNNING example of this where they:

Remove separation of presentation from content by using classes like "w3-red" or "centered" or "xm-s-4" -- at which point you might as well ignore semantics and go back to the train wreck that was HTML 3.2 with tables for layout. Anyone who doesn't know what's wrong with that you don't know enough about HTML or CSS to be flapping their bloody yap on the topic! You should be using tags to say what things are, and classes/ID's to say what things are or WHY they are receiving a style, NOT WHAT THAT STYLE IS since for multiple media targets or media query targets it might be receiving DIFFERENT styling.
Result in writing two to ten times as much markup as needed, with as much of your own custom CSS by the time you do anything unique as you'd have had without the framework -- NOT counting the size of the framework against that CSS total? AT BEST all it does is shuffle the bloat from the CSS to the markup.
Often rely on JavaScript to do HTML+CSS' job. (see bootcraps broken inaccessible mobile menus)
Create specificity HELL thanks to multiple overlapping classes, endless pointless classes for nothing, endless pointless DIV for nothing... What was it Dan Schulz joked shortly before he died? "_The people who used to slop out endless pointless nested tables now just slop out endless pointless nested DIV!" - _End result being wasting endless amounts of time in the document inspector on your own bloody codebase! Realistically in the majority of cases if you need a DOM inspector like firebug or those built into modern browsers on YOUR OWN CODE, you've done something horrifyingly and criminally WRONG!
Create layouts you have to customize the content for, instead of creating layouts that adapt to the content.
Create more to learn and promote sloppy/bad development practices.

Again, to use my favorite whipping boy bootcrap as an example, see this mind-numbing derpitude that PROVES the people who made bootstrap are not qualified to tell others how to build websites!

v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com/examples/jumbotron

Lack of media targets on the stylesheet <link> meaning screen layout is being sent to print, aural, or any of a dozen other official and unofficial targets where it makes no sense, Data attributes and a button with scripttardery doing a checkbox, label, and CSS' job, pointless use of NAV if you bother learning what H1..H6 and HR actually mean (NOT a fan of the new ALLEGEDLY structural HTML 5 tags), non-referenced anchor with no semantic context doing H1's job, H1 doing H2's job, lack of a list on an obivous submenu resulting in a menu acting like a run-on sentence (since <a>nchor is semantically neutral), if a "link" is "disabled" why the **** is it even an anchor and not <del>?!? Pointless aria role crap that should already be handled by the existing semantics (of which there is little), incomplete/malformed form, placeholder is NOT a ***ing LABEL! (Google it!) Paragraphs around content that are not grammatical paragraphs (like two word anchors), more bullshit irrelevant and even incorrect aria role nonsense, jQuery and other scripttardery on a page that isn't doing a damned thing to even warrant the PRESENCE of JavaScript (_apart from maybe 1k of "enhancement" on top of CSS doing the heavy lifting), _up-tree linking screwing over portability... I could go on for hours about everything WRONG with that example and it's only 5.11k of markup.

... doing the job of 3k or LESS HTML. NOT A JOKE. JUST like how it's wasting 9 requests spanning 580k to do around 8k to 12k in 2 or 3 files bloody job!

THAT is a monument to developer ignorance and ineptitude... and I've not seem a front-end framework that varied from this model of stupidity. In fact many others -- like W3.css -- are far, FAR worse since they REEK of "You really do miss HTML 3.2, don't you?!?"

I have NEVER seen a framework that made things simpler, easier, or resulted in "better productivity" -- universally their claims hold water like a steel sieve, reeking more of propaganda and nube predation than it does legitimate helpful development models.

Search Hashnode