19 replies

1. Mark 7 min later

   @zachleat @rich_harris struggled to get past the first take, found it to be a weirdly disingenuous not because it was wrong that the funding model of the web made lots of really shitty incentive structures but that’s not actually related to the criticism he was claiming to address either.

2. Brantley Harris 11 min later

   @zachleat The problem is the arrogance. I wouldn't care about the last 10% otherwise.

   1. Zach Leatherman 13 min later

      @deadwisdom Ah, hmm—this isn’t my reaction to this talk but I’ve followed Rich’s work for a long time so I have favorable bias there for sure

3. Elly Loel 36 min later

   @zachleat @rich_harris ooo yes please! that sounds like loads of fun.

4. Zach Leatherman 37 min later

   @rich_harris surprisingly (to me) this slide is the one that made me cringe the most 🫠

   1. Sandrine 1 hr later

      @zachleat @rich_harris My experience is that people referenced here are also developers.

      I think we all love and are grateful for DX to have become a consideration.
      The problem is that the focus and argumentation of DX the way it is and has been done, in practice, reinforces the main issue of over-capitalism and does, in fact, harms UX (and the market of UX engineers).

      The Venn labels should be:
      - people who think we over-proritize DX
      - people who think we can improve DX while prioritizing UX.

      1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

         @fedbysandrine @rich_harris well said! I don’t think that portion of the talk disagreed with what you said either

   2. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

      (disclosure: I am firmly pro-build)

      Folks that want to “abolish” build tools are (in my experience) arguing and demanding more from the platform (which I agree with 100%) to go further *without* a build—something that @rich_harris has argued in favor of in the web components discussion. This section of the video felt like a mischaracterization to me.

      1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

         I should write a blog post

         1. FartsMusically 1 hr later

            @zachleat I'm here to motivate you.

            (you won't)

            1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

               @FartsMusically the farts aren’t musical enough

               1. FartsMusically 1 hr later

                  @zachleat staring at that cursor again, I see.

         2. Karl Oscar Weber 6 hr later

            @zachleat write it!!!

      2. Brian LeRoux 💚 3 hr later

         @zachleat @rich_harris nobody is calling for abolishment of anything. Ppl do point out tradeoffs in dev velocity, determinism in build artifacts, debugging being more difficult, etc. It's a reduction to the absurd to say abolish when the discussion is more about starting from simplest things that could work and opting into complexity as required.

   3. keithamus 2 hr later

      @zachleat @rich_harris for me it was the slide about GitHub’s markdown preview. A real knee slapper.

      1. James Garbutt 11 hr later

         @keithamus @zachleat @rich_harris Think he chose a bad example there. It isn't just a markdown renderer presumably but needs to do lookups/resolution of referenced issues etc. We have a similar component, we do it clientside like he's suggesting and it *quickly* gets complex...

5. Private reply 1 hr later
   1. Private reply 1 hr later
6. Phil Sherry 15 hr later

   @zachleat @rich_harris It’s good to see captions on these things, but not when they’re still in autogenerated craption form. It would be better if someone had a ticket to sit an edit them between being generated and going public. Here’s one of my favourite examples.

   Rich, you’d better get that wordal plane on the spurtleclean in the next release, or you’re in big trouble, mate.

   #accessibility #captions #craptions #wordalPlane #spurtleclean