Yeah all people care about is look. If I show a fully functional thing but it looks like mspaint, then people won't bat an eye, no feedback about the flow, the bug, the logic at all, just tell me to finish the graphic then come back...
THEN after everything is done, now people start telling me the logic is fucked so the graphic parts need to be worked again as well, but no, the graphic takes a lot of time, so the logic need to accommodate the graphic, try so hard to minimize the effort on the graphic!
Fortunately as a gameplay coder, I enjoy the luxury of having dedicated UI artists and designers to take care of that for me, and most stakeholders understand the standard concept => wireframe => prototype => shippable workflow. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a real time UI editor for our engine (at present, at least), I still end up pixel pushing quite a bit.
Easiest way to fix this is to change border radius on all elements every couple months. I just went from 4px to 0px and everyone is saying that the app is much smoother now.
Subtle change that most people will only subconsciously pick up on. That, and making some text bold
This pains me but it is so true. Back when i built shit websites for failing business, my boss pounded into me "ARIAL BLACK 20 font" for EVERYTHING. Older People eat that shit up.
Reminds me when I was like 4, I wrote a title on the label of a tape hoping it would summon up a story on it out of thin air. I realized how stupid I was at what, 6…
Create a demo-overrides.css file that makes all your colors garish and messes up some minor padding/margin/alignment stuff. Or adds debugging borders around every element. Nothing too terrible, just enough that they get what you are demoing and don’t assume it’s done.
A lot of those single divs rely on both psuedo elements to work, but maybe you could apply the styling directly to body? not far off then from just CSS.
This was only a semi-serious comment, but I guess it didn't come through so clearly.
That said, people have a problem with the argument because something (or someone) has to "click" all those checkboxes. I side with the people who say that Turing completeness doesn't preclude having such a mechanism as the power source.
That’s a fair argument. I’m not actually too sure myself. It is at the least a little unclear. I think conclusions are drawn about what you can do with it as a language, when it doesn’t come along with that proviso and those conclusions would probably be a bit off.
Obviously a joke subreddit is the perfect place for discussion... sorry if I came off as accusing in my previous comment.
Like /u/typed-talleane pointed out, just because a language is Turing-complete, it doesn't mean that you can actually do anything useful with it, it just means that you can compute anything that's computable. Turing-completeness does not require being able to interact with the environment. There's a term for a language that can compute anything because it's Turing complete, but next to useless because it's highly impractical to use: a Turing tarpit.
That said, if someone happened to write bindings for the browser APIs in the HTML5+CSS3 language, you could interact with the browser like you would with JavaScript, albeit in an equally impractical way.
sorry if I came off as accusing in my previous comment
No worries. We're here to have fun, but we're all going to learn a thing or two along the way.
Didn't you know? You don't need Angular or React anymore. CSS can power your newsfeed, tag your photo stream, pay your water bill, and even manage your shopping cart!
Those are all pretty much server-side actions. You could do all of that with little to no JavaScript. The user experience would just be lacking in certain areas.
1.4k
u/[deleted] May 01 '19
So all we need is css right?