amplify-js VS Tailwind CSS

One note of caution, though: Amplify uses a frontend-only Cognito integration that stores long-lived, never-rotating refresh tokens in browser storage, where any XSS vulnerability would have access to them. A more secure approach is to implement a couple of backend API routes to store the refresh tokens in `HttpOnly` cookies instead, which I outlined here (option 1 in your case to support SSO). I'll probably open source a solution to do this early next year so we don't all have to keep reinventing this wheel (probably why AWS calls their conference re:invent).

I'm ramosbugs on GitHub (that comment is mine). If you subscribe to https://github.com/aws-amplify/amplify-js/issues/1218 I'll post a comment there once I release a solution.

Amplify also lets you host a backend, which it runs in Lambda functions. You don't have a lot of control over it, but it works well for its intended audience: People who wouldn't know what to do if they had a lot of control over their Lambda functions. Amplify also lets you consume other AWS services easily, through declarative and easy-to-use libraries. That way, you can consume Cognito or S3 from the frontend without knowing a lot about Cognito or S3. Here's the complete list of libraries for Amplify, and you can check the Readme of the JavaScript one as an example of its features.

Whenever I call Storage.put() inside my React Native (with Expo) application, I get an error of [TypeError: undefined is not a function]. Doing some internet digging, after hours of searching, I found only one other reference to this kind of error, and that is with the DataStore: https://github.com/aws-amplify/amplify-js/issues/10764

Hello! Can you please create a GitHub issue here for us to investigate this further? https://github.com/aws-amplify/amplify-js/issues

Thanks for bringing this up. This discussion on the project's github is equally insightful on the subject.

Amplify GitHub Issue

Bug: There is currently, at the time of writing, a bug in Amplify that does not allow us to use the voiceId “Kevin”, which we selected when creating the backend resources. Selecting the voiceId “Amy” works, so we will use that.

Finally, for our front end, we’re going to be pairing Next.js with the great combination of TailwindCSS and shadcn/ui so we can focus on building the functionality of the app and let them handle making it look awesome!

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...).