proposals VS Tailwind CSS

Check out temporal.io open source project. It was built at Uber for large scale business-level processes. So any data pipelines are low-rate use cases by definition.

With KuFlow it is also possible to work with serverless workflows apart from Temporal.io, we explain it in this blog entry, but in summary, almost as a no-code tool, the correct use It would be a rather low-code tool; in just a matter of minutes with our drag-and-drop tool, you can have a workflow that interacts with one or more users of the organization.

Otherwise you may want to look into Kafka or Fluvio to ensure that task runs at least once. If you're doing something like batch operations as a background task, Temporal is another great option.

The runtime is developed using Temporal, which is one of the main tools that we are currently using at KuFlow. Thanks to, all the workflow executions are robust: your application will be durable, reliable, and scalable.

Hmmm I got confused by the name. I thought it's related to https://temporal.io/

Have you looked at temporal.io open source platform? It uses event sourcing as an implementation detail. But it greatly simplifies the user experience compared to "raw event sourcing."

Rewrite Airflow on top of temporal.io. This way, you get unlimited scalability and very high reliability out of the box and would be able to innovate on the features that matter for DE.

Hi all, founder @ Retool here. Over the past year, we’ve been working on Retool Workflows; a fast way for engineers to automate tasks with code. We started building the product because we ourselves (as developers) were looking for something in-between writing cron jobs (which involves a lot of boilerplate) and Zapier (which oftentimes isn’t customizable enough, since it doesn’t _really_ support writing code).

Workflows is a code-first automation tool: you’re _expected_ to write code, but we handle all the boilerplate for you. For example: out-of-the-box integration with 80+ resources (you probably don’t want to be trying to figure out OAuth 2.0 with Salesforce!), monitoring and observability (so you can see the output of every run in the past, and immediately be notified if something goes wrong), and permissions (e.g. some Okta groups can see the outputs of Workflows, but can’t change the code itself).

Right now, the product is cloud-only, but we’re hard at work at an on-prem, self-hosted version (in a Docker image). If you’re interested in that version, feel free to email us at [email protected]. We aim to get it out in the next few weeks. Self-hosted Retool is responsible for a large portion of our usage today, and we’re excited to be supporting Workflows too.

All Retool plans now include 1GB of Workflows throughput, which we think is quite generous (80% of active Workflows users are below 1GB). We don’t bill by run at all, so you’re welcome to run as many workflows as you want.

We use a bunch of interesting technology for Workflows; we are, for example, using Temporal (https://temporal.io/) under the hood. That’s something we’re going to be writing a blog post about later. (We’ve been hard at work on the launch, hah.)

In such a diverse world, it would be boring to have a single way of doing things. That's why at KuFlow we support different ways to implement the logic of our processes and tasks. And in this post, we will talk about one of them, the orchestration through Temporal, which gives us a powerful way to manage our workflows.

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...).