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

11 replies
@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.@fedbysandrine @rich_harris well said! I don’t think that portion of the talk disagreed with what you said either
(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.
I should write a blog post
@zachleat I'm here to motivate you.
(you won't)
@FartsMusically the farts aren’t musical enough
@zachleat staring at that cursor again, I see.
@zachleat write it!!!
@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.
@zachleat @rich_harris for me it was the slide about GitHub’s markdown preview. A real knee slapper.
@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...