为什么更多开发者不“使用平台”原生能力？

Domain: nolanlawson.com Points: 31 | Comments: 16 [Top Comments] - An aside: This name an logo are incredible. - I actually still use Dragula. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just feels better than Sortable. I may be imagining it, but I also don't care because, you know, it's just a JS library. - since the author brought up the native , developers chose custom implementations of dialogs because they want better accessibility, better focus management, better mobile and touch screen reader support, and more flexibility. adobe's implementation is far more robust and flexible compared to the native dialog, and it's hard to justify "use the platform" when it results in a strictly worse end result. - Yeah, that was kind of ignored in the article and it's definitely an issue for some platform features. Date pickers are another one where it's easy to outgrow the native implementation. - I feel like it’s a historical accident. In the past the platform couldn’t do it all, and if you wanted a dialog you had to use a library. Developers were trained to reach for libraries when they needed something like a dialog. Then react came along and all developed learning web development after react had little to no knowledge of the platform. They were taught that touching the DOM was a bad thing to do. That’s about it. Even now when I advocate for vanilla css I get the side eye and “tailwind and shadcn should be the default”. I get it, it’s what most people are familiar with, even if it’s worse than the platform. - How is tailwind and shadcn worse than platform? It speeds up development by orders of magnitude. - It’s funny, the article proceeds to answer the question in great detail: familiarity, level of abstraction, documentation, etc. I agree with his point that learning to do it yourself can be fun and lead to a flywheel of improvement where the next time you’re faster and the next time faster still. In the past that was the recipe for success as a developer, nowadays with AI many feel that’s no longer the case. - Extreme apathy towards "learn to do it yourself" is exactly why "AI" is so popular right in programming right now. - The last couple of websites I've made have been *largely* the output of Claude with some instructions to keep to WCAG AAA accessibility standards and to optimize for loading and rendering times, and it's done a pretty decent job. If you're insistent about page weight it will avoid adding JS and React and use to browser-native elements, CSS, and vanilla JS where it can. I think the problem is that you have to ask, and to know the language to get the result you're after. If you just ask for a pretty website you're getting 800KB of React libraries to render something, and all in AI Beige with Inter as your font choice. - For one thing, I just genuinely think WebComponents are a badly designed API that is weird and hard to use (how many people are using WebComponents without *at least* Lit, if not something much bigger?), and React is a relatively well-designed library that isn't really that bloated. There's not really much of a point in trying to argue since this is inherently subjective and people with different values are going to irreconcilably disagree. But, if you don't respect that some people hold this position, we're not going to make any progress towards a consensus. On the note of , I recently tried to use in a (React) application, and it did work pretty well, but I also found that in Firefox it is only practically possible to do a fade-in animation, not a fade-out one. That isn't *really* a critical issue for me, it is just an animation after all, but I find it unfortunate. I also find to be a weirdly shaped API too: I don't really *hate* it, but I don't love it either. It feels awkward. I find this implicit view that developers that, for example, prefer React over WebComponents are making a suboptimal choice to be rather condescending and not really in the spirit of trying to see things from the other side. Wouldn't you want to focus on the strongest arguments and not the weakest ones? Maybe you've literally never heard anyone complain about WebComponents or Shadow DOM, but if so, I find that surprising. Certainly here on HN, I've seen a fair bit of WebComponents hate. I *do*, FWIW, realize that I've particularly focused on WebComponents, which this article doesn't actually name directly. But, I assume we're not talking about ditching React to implement our own component framework on top of the traditional DOM APIs, because that's what React already does... - > I just genuinely think WebComponents are a badly designed API that is weird and hard to use This was exactly what sprang to mind as soon as I saw the title. I’ve been writing front-end code for over 25 years now, and exactly two things in that entire time have made me miserable enough to think about stopping: Internet Explorer 6 and web components. Every time I try to just “use the platform” it makes me miserable and I end up demotivated and stop working on whatever side project I chose to try again with. Even now in the age of agentic development, AI trips over all the same footguns in web components that humans do. It just seems like everybody involved has been adding to the standards with “yes, and…” without ever thinking about how it will be used by web developers in practice. - Because the platform is too hard. The average person does not want to spend time figuring out how to get stuff to work. All the browser documentation is 1000 times nerdier than the average person wants. They want all this low level stuff abstracted away from them. Even if you want to do it the nerdy way and bust out a text editor and start writing some HTML tags it all looks ugly out of the box. Browsers pushed everything for naming websites onto 3rd party devs, so they shouldn't be surprised when they want to use 3rd party dev's stuff over the bad and confusing 1st party ones. The browser developers are in an ivory tower building a product that doesn't really care about web developers and their needs. - Because the platform sucks. I want a rounded button with a certain radius and a certain font, that feels squishy and satisfying when you press it, especially on mobile. - As far as I know there are still some things "the platform" actually won't deliver; for instance I'm fairly certain there's no searchable combobox that's fully accessible. One ~must leave the platform to give users the experience the expect. That means "the platform" itself is actually teaching people to work "off platform" and arguably will always have gaps as functionality and expectations evolve. Admittedly, the habit really ought to be 'I need to make a combobox -> does the platform have what I need? -> Research, evaluate, test -> Otherwise, make it' but I don't begrudge people for skipping the middle steps.