This is an earnest question but is that really true for reactivity and state management? Of course with vanilla is all things are technically possible, but I feel like last I checked this wasn’t something well supported without really knowing what you’re doing.

If that means having an "HTML+CSS framework" that I could easily swap out for a "Typst framework" and publish my blog using Typst, then sign me up!

Meanwhile, there's Typst bundles [1], still experimental, that implement the same idea backwards: convergint a Typst project into a set of output files (which can be HTML).

[1] https://typst.app/docs/reference/bundle/

I don’t disagree with you and I lurve frameworks. Yes, I love react. It is so awesome.

But it is SO nice to not have any build step. All of my new projects start as a single babashka script now. You got html templating, throw in a stylesheet. Slap a datastar script tag in there for everything else. It’s just easy peasy.

As culi also touches on I think it depends on what is meant by frameworks. As someone who belives abstraction are horrible practice unless they serve a really good purpose though, I never bought the "this is easier" part of the big CSS frameworks. I fully accept that people who work on user facing web applications more than I do, which is rarely, had a much easier time using something like bootstrap/tailwind/whatever. I always found having to look up documentation on something wich was infinitely worse than the CSS documentation on developer.mozilla.org to be a a weird experience. I do fully accept that a lot of teams experiences would prove my personal opinions wrong on this.

On the flip-side I always found javascript frameworks to have a purpose. Though to be fair I don't think I've worked with user facing javascript without a framework since jquery came about. I guess you could call that a library, but still.

People who use css-as-an-object type of frameworks or tailwind don't really get to experience what writing CSS is like. styled-components or Linaria or Emotion do though ofc

OP might be referring to using React together with a UI library that comes with elements like <Grid>, instead of using just React + CSS grid.

Think layer? Like a page loading 6MB of crap to show 0.5KB of text?

Except that with React you usually use something like tailwind or similar that abstracts writing CSS, that do me doesn't make sense.

Of course you can still write plain CSS.

> Just do a google search for flexible divs side by side. Start with two. Then switch to five. Tell me the solutions that work well.

I did like you asked. The first search result on google is a question on stack overflow. And the first comment provides an example that looks very much like flexible divs, side by side, between two and four based on the width of the container.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60615826/two-divs-side-b...

What didn't you like about the solution in that comment?

"flexible divs side by side" sounds like something which can be generated in many ways, From display: inline-block, over float:left, col-columns, flex layout, to a grid based layout. Can what you desire be created in, for example, https://grid.layoutit.com/?

My rule of thumbs is: Use flexbox unless it truly is a grid or repeating rows + "I wonder if a flexbox can be used ... ah yes it can." Flexbox is just made for responsive layouts. It is very good.

flexible divs side by side is trivial with both flexbox and grids. Far, far, far easier than prior to flexbox.

don't search, ask an llm. Ask it to keep it as simple as possible and have it explain the tags you've forgotten.

[flagged]