xgo VS Tailwind CSS

I see, in this thread, talks about what Sciter does and does not offer.

It's not the only alternative to Electron, but it might be one that offers predictable and repeatable results.

I released a small open source project on HN last week (https://github.com/Fusion/pngsource) and I wrote its backend logic in Go. I built the frontend using Tailwind (https://tailwindcss.com) and DaisyUI (https://daisyui.com) and, using Go compiler flags, I can release the app using both WebView (github.com/webview/webview) (which, yes, does require the host OS' collaboration) and Wails (wails.app) (which also does.)

On Linux/AMD64, the binary's size is 3.7M when building for WebView, and 6.8M when targeting Wails.

The way the app works is I drag/drop files to the UI, magic happens, and I use github.com/ncruces/zenity to prompt the user for a save location.

I cross-compile the apps using xgo (https://github.com/karalabe/xgo)

It's been working pretty well on Linux, Windows, MacOS. I think WebView's approach of limiting the feature set is working well as it feels more "native" than Wails (better refreshes and resize operations for instance)

However, I already have a few tickets reporting that, for instance, the app is displayed as a blank window in some environments. And it's hard to debug remotely, obviously. So, this is where Sciter may be a better option.

The test program runs great on macOS, but when I use xgo to cross-compile it for Linux, all it outputs is:

And, xgo to build cross-platform from Linux; yet I can run in Windows and macOS.

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...).