that's a nice little one. Funny to see those websites from back in the days when HTML was still hand made and handcrafted
You might be surprised which giant corporations have given up on all the framework hype and language tribalism and actually allow their web devs to build sites by hand with care.
I'm thinking of one particular multi-billion dollar company, but there are a number of others.
Sometimes sanity wins.
The use of a framework/library does not preclude handcrafting.
But it certainly is a gray area.
But if a program generates something, and then just directly serves the result, it is certainly not hand-crafted.
The distinction comes down to whether the final result is something a human signed off on and took responsibility for, or whether it’s just the result of blind rule-following.
In this specific case, the hand crafted HTML that I've come across in my lifetime is usually absolute garbage. I can normally see how the developer who wrote it thinks they're being clever or nifty, and dare I say it "clean", but it usually falls short and causes more harm than good.
So imagine we as an industry organically build tools to address this. 10 years later it's pretty good, but like 5 major websites still handcraft things because they have complicated user experiences with a broad user base.
We then get dork heads who see this, believe they're part of the exception, despite not having anything remotely close to the userbase or requirements of these websites, refuse to understand why certain things are the way they are, and think they're above these processes and frameworks despite not having invested any real time or effort into the skills necessary to justify not using these frameworks or fabricated HTML.
And the worst part is it's just HTML. And we still get it wrong.
TL;DR Programmers think they're better than they really are. Use the frameworks.
I've never yet see anyone argue that the reason tools took over the writing of HTML is because hand-written HTML wasn't good enough.
The one where I don't value bespoke development just because it's bespoke?
The universe where I have to actually quantify what's good and what isn't?
The worst kind of comments related to this discussion are always the ones that are insufferably offended that they can't out perform decades of experience and knowledge without doing anything.
>I've never yet see anyone argue that the reason tools took over the writing of HTML is because hand-written HTML wasn't good enough.
Check who you're listening to? It's a fairly common argument.
I'm not insufferably offended by what you think I can or can't do (I couldn't care less) I just honestly can't fathom, after 20 years of looking at HTML produced by hand and by tools, how anyone could think the tools produce better markup if you're actually talking about inherent quality of the end result. Cheaper and faster, maybe, with a lower learning curve, sure, but better? I don't buy it.
But I was actually thinking of a different company. I'd forgotten about Apple.
(Another fun one, braeburncapital.com used to work as apple.com for a bit—I think even longer than next.com.)
The word "vanilla" is used here as an adjective to describe something that is "lacking distinction: plain, ordinary, or conventional" [0].
As such, the joke is that Vanilla JS is being presented as some amazing new framework, but it isn't anything more than regular JS that you would write. In a sense, it's the anti-JS framework, requiring no additional scripts or dependencies.
This is deliberate. Warren Buffet was vocally anti-dot-com boom (and bust) and their site continues to follow a minimalist philosophy to this day.