Kong VS Tailwind CSS

Kong: A cloud-native, fast, scalable, and distributed Microservice Abstraction Layer (also known as an API Gateway or API Middleware). Made available as an open-source project in 2015, its core functionality is written in Lua and it runs on the nginx web server.

OPeNsOuRcE. Good time to switch to Kong, better option anyways.

Sounds like you want an API gateway? What about Kong?

Unquestionably no, Kong is "OpenResty plus a management plane" and they're Apache 2: https://github.com/kong/kong#license

Kong (https://konghq.com) | Gateway Senior Engineer | REMOTE Europe | Full-time

The Kong Gateway is an API Management solution, which serves as a foundation for many other solutions by the company. The business model is open-core: an Open Source solution exists (https://github.com/kong/kong), and there's an Enterprise version with more features and dedicated support.

The tech stack is a modified Openresty with of Lua code on top. The ideal candidate would be someone who is already familiar with Kong. Alternatively, if you are familiar with Openresty or other API management solution, we also would love to talk with you.

I am personally interested in finding people to join me in the European Gateway Team. The role involves adding features, fixing bugs, and collaborating with other teams. Here's that position:

https://jobs.lever.co/kong/c1a2b204-45a8-4c19-9cd4-d9824a778...

We have many projects and many teams all around the world (current headcount is ~450), using other technologies like Node in the Kong Manager or Go in the Koko project, and we are constantly looking for people. Please visit our careers page to find out more!

https://konghq.com/careers/

Kong Gateway allows the complexity of service-tier APIs to be reduced to a collection of endpoints (or URIs) focused on meeting a collection of business needs and functionality. Often-duplicated components (like authentication, logging, and security) are handled by the gateway and can be removed from the service-tier design.

I am seeing different companies taking different approach. I am not sure anymore where each should be actually used. On top of that tech like Kong make me question whether API Gateway should be one thing for all. Some perspective into this would be really appreciated.

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...).