Semantic UI VS Tailwind CSS

1. The author links to this file as an example: https://github.com/Semantic-Org/Semantic-UI/blob/49b9cbf47c1... . How would you structure it better than it currently is without using sections?

2. So you have a class that has a bunch of getters and setters. Let's just assume that "generate them automatically" is not an option. You want to make it really easy to see the part of the class which is getters, and the part of the class which is setters, and then skim past that. How do you do it?

3. So you have a file that defines 3 data structures. Each data structure has a definition, a bunch of functions for parsing it, and a bunch of functions for serializing it. The author suggests that you split the file into 3 sections for the types, with subsections each for the definition, parsing, and serializing. How would you do it? Let's say the language is Rust or Typescript.

I'm a big fan of Semantic UI, but I thought it was dead? There's barely been any activity on the repo in over 5 years (https://github.com/Semantic-Org/Semantic-UI/graphs/contribut...).

Semantic UI is a free, open source library that helps you build UIs with confidence. It provides over 3000+ Theming Variables and 50 + UI components and each one of them has been carefully designed to look beautiful and work intuitively. It is designed to be an intuitive, accessible, and flexible starting point for your project. It's packed with features that you can use right out of the box, and it's very easily customizable. To date, it has been downloaded over 6 million times and it has around 50,000 GitHub stars.

The way I see is that it is for the same reason that Qt and GTK include all the widgets and abstractions to create a complete UI.

Another framework that I've used in the past for 2 WebApps projects[1][2] -and I was quite happy with the result- is Semantic-UI (and the fomantic fork)[0]

[0] https://github.com/Semantic-Org/Semantic-UI

Semantic UI - 50K⭐ - Last update: October 2018

Semantic is a UI component framework based around useful principles from natural language.

You can use any frontend framework you want — react-based tooling, however, has a natural advantage as it models everything as a function of state, which can map 1:1 with the concept in Burr. In the demo app we use react, react-query, and tailwind, but we’ll be skipping over this largely (it is not central to the purpose of the post).

Tailwind CSS: A utility-first CSS framework for rapidly building custom designs.

First, you need to make sure that you have a working Tailwind CSS project…

Tailwind CSS

With better CSS approaches like TailwindCSS and Vanilla Extract (which we're heavily using) it's much easier to maintain the UI and make sure it doesn't change unexpectedly. No more conflicting CSS classes, much less CSS specificity issues and much less CSS code in general.

This app was built with Svelte Kit, Tailwind CSS, and many other technologies. For a full rundown, please visit the GitHub repository

Unlike Tailwind, which has over 77,000 stars on GitHub, Mojo CSS has about 200 stars on GitHub. But the Mojo CSS documentation is fairly good and you can find most of the information you’ll need there.

JavaScript React Flowbite Tailwind Firebase - Auth, Database, and Hosting Vite

- Performance is a feature.

Another common interpretation of brutalism is aesthetic, reacting to overly complicated user interfaces by creating simpler, more direct ones. Tailwind CSS (https://tailwindcss.com), one of today's most popular CSS libraries, promotes this approach in its component examples. There's also a neat library I've seen recently called "Neobrutalism Components" for React that I like (https://neobrutalism-components.vercel.app), providing components with a similar look and feel to Gumroad. This might more accurately be called 'Neo-Brutalism,' as noted in the comments.

A more engineering-centric interpretation of Brutalism focuses on form, structure, and efficiency, drawing significantly from brutalist architecture principles. Apart from the user interface itself, most mobile, desktop, and web applications are extremely bloated and often perform worse than sites from 10 years ago did. While one HTML file might be "less brutalist" than the original HN site, it is substantially more brutalist than any HN mobile app in existence, and offers nearly identical functionality.

A broader interpretation of brutalism, which could be termed 'Meta-Brutalism,' is embodied in the overall experience on this site through UX flows. Yes, in the strictest sense, the original HN site is more Brutalist in many ways, but it only shows 30 articles at a time and does not function as a PWA. For this site, the experience of reading 10 stories is arguably less brutalist, but for quickly browsing through several pages and skimming articles (which is how I read HN) it is a lot faster, and in my opinion, more Brutalist.

My primary inspiration was addressing software and tool bloat in UIs rather than strictly adhering to every principle set forth by David Bryant Copeland. I don't find it convincing that this site "isn't brutalist" compared to really any other experience apart from the Main HN site, and I would argue the overall experience is more brutalist in its performance and scrolling behavior.

As a side note: I generally don't like Brutalist architecture that much although I believe it is unfairly maligned. I visited the Salk Institute once and enjoyed it though (https://www.archdaily.com/61288/ad-classics-salk-institute-l...).

- Staff Software Engineer ($275k/yr): https://tailwindcss.com/careers/staff-software-engineer

We're small, independent, and profitable, with a team of just 6 people doing millions in revenue, and growing sustainably every year. You'd work directly with the founders on open-source software used by millions of people.

If you like the idea of working on a small team that cares about craft and isn't trying to achieve VC scale, I think this is a pretty awesome place to do your best work.