Hacker News Reader

Comment by joduplessis | Hacker News Reader

Let me be the first to object to the "rote" classification. Design systems are hard in a way that good design is hard. For the folks in the comments (and in the article) comparing UI libs to design systems, they are completely different.

EDIT: Evidently, the person writing the article seems to have a very cursory understanding of design systems & component libraries. Maybe better left as a tweet than a full article IMO.

View on HN

I think you're missing some of the nuance in the article. Rote here means that on the industry level, they can feel like an established, everyday, ought-to-be-easy thing—not that they're actually easy.

I'm curious, though: what gives you the impression that the person writing the article "seems to have a very cursory understanding of design systems & component libraries?"

For me I think the definitions were quite "high level" & broad? Stuff like:

> A design system is really a high-level concept uniting various things together around shared objectives.

That isn't really true or accurate - design systems aren't abstract things. They're a set of aesthetic relationships/rules that govern appearance.

I think maybe a small gripe was the inclusion of component libraries - those are always lumped into the same bucket as design systems by folk who don't really understand design systems. Saying that though, happy to admit I may be wrong.

See you're the author - hope I didn't come off as too combative or dismissive. I think my wording could have been a bit lighter (this being the internet and all).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com