>"We don't use Typescript because there are people that exist who use it for CSS when using React"
This not at all what was being conveyed, you made that up in your head. The OP didn't say they were not using Typescript because someone else used it for CSS, but that's what you seem to have written.
> React’s ecosystem has devs slapping TypeScript on everything—even CSS—which is overkill
It's actually EXACTLY what they're saying. They're using it as an example of why they don't use Typescript (ie people use React take it too far by using it for React). What does React that have anything to do with not using Typescript?
Indeed. This button comparison is quite telling, ragardless of the exact details. Definitely going to look what Nue is made of. It's refreshing to take a closer look at modern web standards — Nue or not.
But Nuejs claims to be standards-first. The entire premise of the framework is "All these other frameworks bring their own stuff, and have lost the plot on how beautiful HTML, CSS and JS can be", and then they turn around and use Markdown (not-standard), cli (not standard), bun (not standard).
My biggest issue with Tailwind is point #5 on the article: Tailwind encourages div/span-tag soup. Together with the class name soup my HTML becomes unreadable.
A big issue that these articles never mention is that using browser dev tools to debug CSS becomes a huge pain with tailwind. It also makes it harder for community to create custom themes/user scripts for your website/app since targeting specific elements becomes incredibly hard when no class names exist.
Not to mention, it basically puts a dsl on top of CSS.
CSS by itself is great, and with all the modern changes you hardly need to use preprocessors like SCSS (there's still some advantages but far fewer than say, 5 years ago).
I don't understand the people in the thread that hate writing CSS...
To be honest, I don't find that a problem. Most frontend development is done in a higher-order abstraction like React. For the most part, I don't read HTML and I don't write HTML. If you use the right level of composition, "div soup" should never really be a problem.
It doesn't the author is just bad at semantic HTML. That first example should be an `<article>` and the 5th example doesn't actually show div/span soup.
Thanks! I agree: it definitely is a long time! The main reasons are:
1. The data from big customers was something we didn't expect. Tens of thousands of blog entries and referring domains. Measuring tractino for all of them was a no-go. It's was a usability problem (and a scalability prlbem for us).
2. We had to make a pivot. The first version wasn't as exciting as we wanted it to be. This one is, at least according to the user feedback.
3. This was mostly done as a side project. Only the past six months have been two people full time.
Plausible tracks visitors without their permission. This is illegal in Europe where notice or consent or is needed, regardless of how cookies are used/not used.
Does this change anything that the author has said? You haven't commented on whether or not you agree with them, you've just (rightly or wrongly) attacked their character.
I assume you're referring to the fact that they don't respect the Do Not Track header? In my opinion this is fine because they don't 'track' visitors around the web as such, respecting the original intent of this DNT option.
> I feel like a lot of this comes down to what "track" means, and what I as an average user am expecting when I enable "do not track".
> Personally, I feel like "track" means following me across multiple websites, or keeping a detailed record of my individual browsing habits on an individual site.
> If you think about what "tracking" means in real life, it means constantly following someone/something or monitoring it. If someone had one of those little infrared foot traffic counter things at the door to their shop, I wouldn't say they're tracking me as an individual. They're tracking how much foot traffic they get, but they're not tracking me.
> Both Plausible and Fathom are just like this. They don't keep the same user identifiers for more than 24h, they just take an anonymous count when you walk in the door to a site (along with a few other anonymous things like referrer). In short, as a user, I don't feel like my individual activity is being tracked to create a profile of my browsing, I just feel like the website is counting me when I walk in the door. They're tracking their visit stats, but they're not tracking ME.
> As cause enabling DNT, what I'm saying and expecting is "do not track ME". It's fine to track your usage stats, but don't track ME and build a profile of ME. So I would not expect services like Plausible and Fathom to do anything about this header, since they're not tracking me as an individual in the first place.
I think this is a great counter-argument to the current state of the frontend development ecosystem, which is far from minimal. The article might be too extreme, but I would love to see more minimalism on the general approach to things.
Both Fathom [1] and Plausible [2] claim to be GDPR compliant, but they are not.
They use a technique called "device fingerprinting" by collecting online identifiers, such as IP addresses, and browser characteristics for identification. Thus user consent is needed.
Plausible's fingerprinting uses a rotating salt, which is rolled daily and the previous salt is discarded. That means the hash can't be tied to a given user and their IP/browser at a later date. How is that not GDPR compliant? How is Volument better?
> There are no hooks, filters, templating, or plugins. No middleware for async calls. There are no heavy request and response objects so you never need to worry about request bodies, argument parsing or return value serialization.
