Comment by zackbrown | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zackbrown | Hacker News Reader

Structure determines behavior. If a technology structurally encourages shooting oneself in the foot, people will shoot themselves in the feet.

The author seems to be arguing the the core problem is behavior — if only developers would stop building flimsy things! But what about a structural view? Is there a certain structure that lends HTML, CSS, and JS to creating frustrating experiences?

The structural heart of this problem is so big it's hard to see — it's the ground we stand on. The designed-by-committee dissonance between "the Web should be a simple document engine" and "the Web should be a game-engine-like interactive graphical runtime" leaves us with a bloated tech stack that doesn't excel at either.

WebAssembly and WebGPU give us a way out. Fork HTML. Employ a better language for authoring documents; employ a better language for authoring apps & games. It is a matter of time.

I think the fact that "structure determines behavior" is true is exactly what it is he is lamenting about. The fact that a tool enables you to shoot yourself in the foot is never an excuse to shoot yourself in the foot. Knowing how not to shoot yourself in the foot with a powerful tool is one thing that separates amateurs from professionals, and you get to be a professional by caring.

That is not to say that work shouldn't be done on making tools which require less cognitive load to use professionally, but until that happens I feel there are too many opinions blaming the tools instead of taking on the responsibility required to use them correctly.

The problem is: you shouldn't have to be a professional to author Web software. Certainly I was not when I started tinkering with HTML & CSS in the 90s. The trend line is moving — in 10 years, it's likely that billions of people will be able to create apps & websites. Should we hold all of those billions to a high bar of professional diligence? Not practical.

If a four-way stop intersection were missing one of its stop signs, a diligent driver would infer the missing stop sign and pass cautiously. We all agree that drivers should be diligent. In aggregate, anthropologically speaking, there would be accidents at that intersection. Rather than "scream into the wind" at every passing driver, a systemic solution is necessary.

Not that I would call most people to action to create a solution themselves — this particular problem is hard tech and a tremendous amount of work — but I do challenge people to be open to a better future. With such future in mind, "screaming at passing cars" feels like a battle against the wrong enemy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com