shopify-app-template-node VS Tailwind CSS

I tried building a sample app using this link https://github.com/Shopify/shopify-app-template-node sometime back. I was able to run the test app and connect with my development store.

Upon some digging and viewing the Shopify app starter (https://github.com/Shopify/shopify-app-template-node/tree/cli_three) that uses Vite + Express, it looks like the answer lies in somehow proxying(?) the frontend to the backend if in development mode, but I haven't been able to crack it.

Building a Shopify App with anything outside React or Rails can be daunting; you’re on your own for the most part. Since I figured it out with my crew using VueJs: we’ve decided to Open Source the template.

I tried the relative path and that didn't work either. I think the issue is that since it's a Shopify app, all routes are behind oauth. My thinking is that I need to host the stylesheet where it is publicly accessible. Then call it in a similar manner to the google drive folder. This is what was used to scaffold the project. Line 91 is the server side code where oauth is checked for every route

Thanks for the response! Let me dive into that. I am using a custom server but it was scaffolded from Shopify's CLI so I would *assume* POST forwarding would be configured. This is a link to server.js.

I'm building a Shopify App scaffolded with the CLI and have issues with routing using the Nextjs router. The standard embedded app implementation does not update the URL so a RoutePropagator component is needed.

Thanks for the resources! The issue was that I was (intentionally) using a branch from the Shopify CLI that removed the use of Next.js. Because Next.js wasn't used, simply putting the remote script in a Public folder wouldn't work. I ended up switching back to the main branch that used Next.js and the script now renders on my development theme :)

link: https://github.com/Shopify/shopify-app-node/pull/661

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...).