|
Short answer: no.
Long answer: neither (D)HTML nor CSS were really designed for the purpose they are used for, namely a browser-independent specification of page layout, etc. It is therefore no surprise that HTML development is so kludgy.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: neither (D)HTML nor CSS were really designed for
wait, they were designed?
I don't buy it. 
I figure someone came up with them while drinking.
Like "hold my beer"
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Well ... there is Blazor: Blazor | Build client web apps with C# | .NET[^] - which should get rid of >50% of the actual suckery: Javascript. It still uses HTML and CSS though 
I haven't tried it - I learned many years ago that anything microsoft count as "before RTM" (or even "before SP1") is realistically called "beta" - but it does look very interesting.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
javascript is actually not terrible for me with jquery.
a lot of times it's just spacing and overlapping layout crap that CSS does that takes all my time.
I could probably go back to using tables and cut my webdev time in half.
I think CSS was designed by committee, and that committee actually hates people - like a committee of misanthropes.
"Let's take something conceptually easy and make it nearly impossible to use instead, so that we can make people feel bad about themselves" - CSS working group.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I could probably go back to using tables
Wait, there's another way? 
I don't care what is en vogue, tables rule! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
after implementing .clearfix enough times in CSS trying to use its "modern" method (which doesn't work) I tend to agree.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
| Try using nested page elements that are absolutely positioned, to contain all your content. It works great and you can also make the designs conform automatically to any screen width - see my example at www.philpearl.us/adaptive/.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that CSS is not everyone's thing, but I wouldn't call it unusable. I think what frustrates many users is that while it is simple to use in a basic way, it can be difficult to use well. A lot of the burden for organization is on the user, and you do need a strategy and a knowledge of the whole application in order to use it economically. There is something of a craft to it, which I realize is not something everyone feels should be required of them. Because there are so many ways to do the same thing, more important than the immediate CSS rules is the planning and organization.
CSS would not be usable if it produced errors, or if the browsers weren't so tolerant of bad CSS. You really do need to take the time and get the basics of specificity and selectors first. Some of the layout concepts can take a while to gel, and you do still need to deal with some browser differences (although it's a lot better now than it used to be). But after a while I began to appreciate how much you can get done with very little code, once you have the hierarchy of styles established for the application, it becomes very predictable.
I see a lot of people hate on CSS, but very often specific issues turn out to be known and solvable. I can see why it can be seen as chaotic and unplanned, but I think it's better to think of it as very open-ended, and better to re-adjust expectations on what's needed to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Blazor is indeed very interesting. If it was launched before I had to learn javascript I would probably never learn it. But I kinda like it now (javascript) it is messy in a beautifull way 
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, i wasn't sure that you hated me before, but now i am.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Na, it does the job. More or less. I reckon that it does not *completely* fullfill that other requirement of yours that it should not make web development suck.
|
|
|
|
|
in 2006 microsoft was finally embarrassed enough to discontinue it and instead hide its functionality in sharepoint.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's burried just next to clippy.
|
|
|
|
|
I killed clippy myself, and I'll never tell where i hid the body, except it's the first place you'd look if it wasn't the last place you'd expect.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I just had a flashback to PWS and the little merlin looking character! Fun times!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a kids' educational package using that Merlin animated character. Fitted onto 5 floppy disks and was a lot of fun. Written in VB3... happy days. (No, really!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
With my limited experience with web technologies and having spent some time with the various libraries.
I have found that DHMLX works far better than some other supposedly better coded ones, e.g. Telerik ones. Using such libraries shaves off a lot of development effort.
Also, DHTMLX has far better documentation that any I've seen.
And the magic you're looking for is called JavaScript, there's also bootstrap. 
|
|
|
|
|
you're probably right about the javascript, as I've had better luck sanitizing, or rather "sanifying" my code using say, jquery than i have using CSS 3 - the layout issues still plague me. There's so many corner cases
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using bootstrap's CSS library for almost all my development and it more or less does the job well.
|
|
|
|
|
a lot of people use that. i have at times, but it's still a slog
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: There's so many corner cases
True, but at least we now have border-radius... remember when we had to position <img> tags over the corners to get rounded borders? 
|
|
|
|
|
that's not quite what i meant
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I know...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Happy days indeed!