|
|
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce.
is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. 
is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Best No-Code Development Platforms Software in 2019 | G2[^]
I have some experience with Betty Blocks, and the HTML and CSS part is indeed quite easy, just drag it on the form.
Everything else sucks, like no source control, back-end code is also drag 'n drop, don't even try the newest front-end frameworks, weird database without a query language (that I know of)...
You can't have your pie and eat it too 
|
|
|
|
|
it sounds like trading one set of problems for another.
and speaking of this webdev crap, the WPF designer is about as bad as all that.
Which is why i don't use WPF
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I find with WPF that it's far easier just to write the XAML as text and ignore the WYSIWYMIYGBPW* editor as much as possible.
(*What you see is what you might imagine you'll get but probably won't).
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
does that somehow make error reporting come back?
i love when i put a control on a page and I get no control, and no error.
it just warms my black little heart.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It brings all the bad things of web development and mixes it with all the bad things of desktop development to give you the best desktop development tool ever
so they tried to make WPF?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
At least it's multi-platform... Give them some credit!
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, I give them credit for making it suck on any platform you want it to suck on.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Short answer: no.
Long answer: neither (D)HTML nor CSS were really designed for the purpose they are used for, namely a browser-independent specification of page layout, etc. It is therefore no surprise that HTML development is so kludgy.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: neither (D)HTML nor CSS were really designed for
wait, they were designed?
I don't buy it. 
I figure someone came up with them while drinking.
Like "hold my beer"
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Well ... there is Blazor: Blazor | Build client web apps with C# | .NET[^] - which should get rid of >50% of the actual suckery: Javascript. It still uses HTML and CSS though 
I haven't tried it - I learned many years ago that anything microsoft count as "before RTM" (or even "before SP1") is realistically called "beta" - but it does look very interesting.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
javascript is actually not terrible for me with jquery.
a lot of times it's just spacing and overlapping layout crap that CSS does that takes all my time.
I could probably go back to using tables and cut my webdev time in half.
I think CSS was designed by committee, and that committee actually hates people - like a committee of misanthropes.
"Let's take something conceptually easy and make it nearly impossible to use instead, so that we can make people feel bad about themselves" - CSS working group.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I could probably go back to using tables
Wait, there's another way?
I don't care what is en vogue, tables rule! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
after implementing .clearfix enough times in CSS trying to use its "modern" method (which doesn't work) I tend to agree.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
| Try using nested page elements that are absolutely positioned, to contain all your content. It works great and you can also make the designs conform automatically to any screen width - see my example at www.philpearl.us/adaptive/.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that CSS is not everyone's thing, but I wouldn't call it unusable. I think what frustrates many users is that while it is simple to use in a basic way, it can be difficult to use well. A lot of the burden for organization is on the user, and you do need a strategy and a knowledge of the whole application in order to use it economically. There is something of a craft to it, which I realize is not something everyone feels should be required of them. Because there are so many ways to do the same thing, more important than the immediate CSS rules is the planning and organization.
CSS would not be usable if it produced errors, or if the browsers weren't so tolerant of bad CSS. You really do need to take the time and get the basics of specificity and selectors first. Some of the layout concepts can take a while to gel, and you do still need to deal with some browser differences (although it's a lot better now than it used to be). But after a while I began to appreciate how much you can get done with very little code, once you have the hierarchy of styles established for the application, it becomes very predictable.
I see a lot of people hate on CSS, but very often specific issues turn out to be known and solvable. I can see why it can be seen as chaotic and unplanned, but I think it's better to think of it as very open-ended, and better to re-adjust expectations on what's needed to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Blazor is indeed very interesting. If it was launched before I had to learn javascript I would probably never learn it. But I kinda like it now (javascript) it is messy in a beautifull way
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, i wasn't sure that you hated me before, but now i am.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Na, it does the job. More or less. I reckon that it does not *completely* fullfill that other requirement of yours that it should not make web development suck.
|
|
|
|
|
in 2006 microsoft was finally embarrassed enough to discontinue it and instead hide its functionality in sharepoint.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's burried just next to clippy.
|
|
|
|
|
I killed clippy myself, and I'll never tell where i hid the body, except it's the first place you'd look if it wasn't the last place you'd expect.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
