Is front-end web development dying?

[emjay]

I've no idea what /Vorls is, cos I don't keep up to date with technologies... and that's another reason I would never have faired well as a web developer; because everything's always changing and I can't keep up... I'm a slow learner like that. So it's basically only VB, Gambas (essentially a Linux version of VB), PHP, and more recently, Java through app programming, and Javascript through the Mafia programs I've written here, that I know or use. But I'm happy and proud that I was able to learn enough HTML, CSS, and Javascript together to make those two mafia programs... but both are still more about function than form. But that's as far as it goes with them, I still have no clue whatsoever how you'd go about making a modern site with them, especially the CSS aspect, and tbh I don't like using too modern sites, since the more flashy they are the slower they tend to load for me. So yeah, I'm not very artistic either... I prefer simple but functional designs.

Vorls...as in Vorlon. Because I said I preferred the back end.

I mean, I know it was a lame joke, but c'mon, man

Lol and more importantly...

[bennyboy]

I test web apps for the living. I see plenty of common things, like jQuery and Bootstrap (to an extent), but none of the sites I test could be created in Wix or whatever crap GoDaddy produced. The thing about the front-end is that is has to talk to the back-end. No sensible company is going to design a front-end in Wix and then somehow try to jerry-rig it to their back-end servers.

You summarized in 2 lines what I rambled on about for half a page.

I've actually tried to do this in the past-- use a designer to put together a site, and then add my own bells and whistles.

The problem was that the designed code was a freaking nightmare-- meaningless .css class names, stupid amounts of unnecessary in-line style declarations, and so on.  All the postbacks were wired, so that I couldn't add new buttons that posted and did anything on the server side without screwing up the entire navigation system. In the end, it literally took me less time to learn how to properly set up my style sheets and so on than it would have taken me just to fix the shit that auto-designers spew out.

[KevinM1]

I test web apps for the living. I see plenty of common things, like jQuery and Bootstrap (to an extent), but none of the sites I test could be created in Wix or whatever crap GoDaddy produced. The thing about the front-end is that is has to talk to the back-end. No sensible company is going to design a front-end in Wix and then somehow try to jerry-rig it to their back-end servers.

You summarized in 2 lines what I rambled on about for half a page.

I've actually tried to do this in the past-- use a designer to put together a site, and then add my own bells and whistles.

The problem was that the designed code was a freaking nightmare-- meaningless .css class names, stupid amounts of unnecessary in-line style declarations, and so on.  All the postbacks were wired, so that I couldn't add new buttons that posted and did anything on the server side without screwing up the entire navigation system.  In the end, it literally took me less time to learn how to properly set up my style sheets and so on than it would have taken me just to fix the shit that auto-designers spew out.

This was me in the early-to-mid 2000s.  I was hired by a somewhat local non-profit to help with their website.  The original version was done by some elderly guy in Microsoft Frontpage.  He didn't even bother to keep certain elements that appeared on most of the pages the same size on each page.  He just lazily eyeballed it.  The entire site was yellow and pink.

The code generated by Frontpage was an embarrassment.  Everything was inline.  A ton of superfluous nested elements.  For the 1st part of the rebuild, I took a hatchet to the code just to cut down on file sizes so when I went back in to reorganize things and make them look better, I wouldn't have to go through a bunch of tangled shit.  Every page had at least a 25% reduction in code.  Most were 35%-50%.  Some were 60%+ (Frontpage couldn't do tables right).  Same ugly ass looking site, but much smaller footprint.  

From there, I salvaged what I could of the smaller pages.  I rewrote the more complicated ones from scratch.  If I was doing it again today, I simply would've nuked the first version and rebuild the entire thing, but I was young and dumb.

[Assimilate]

I've just started learning front-end development, so I don't know what I'm talking about in most instances. Though, I think front end is safe for now, still plenty of applications that cant be executed through automation. 10-20 years from now, who knows, but if your working with technology you have to always expect something new and more viable will coming in. Just need to be able to adapt to the change and learn new things.

[bennyboy]

From there, I salvaged what I could of the smaller pages.  I rewrote the more complicated ones from scratch.  If I was doing it again today, I simply would've nuked the first version and rebuild the entire thing, but I was young and dumb.

To be fair, .css is a lot easier to work with now. Unless for some reason your client needs you to support legacy IE versions (fuck you, IE6!), then things stand a pretty fair chance of working on most major browsers.

I wonder if the designers are still that bad. I'm guessing they are still unworkable-- but I imagine a programmer who really wanted to make auto-generated sites nice and clean set down to it, it could be done.

I'm pretty sure I could do it, for example.

[KevinM1]

From there, I salvaged what I could of the smaller pages.  I rewrote the more complicated ones from scratch.  If I was doing it again today, I simply would've nuked the first version and rebuild the entire thing, but I was young and dumb.

To be fair, .css is a lot easier to work with now.  Unless for some reason your client needs you to support legacy IE versions (fuck you, IE6!), then things stand a pretty fair chance of working on most major browsers.

I wonder if the designers are still that bad.  I'm guessing they are still unworkable-- but I imagine a programmer who really wanted to make auto-generated sites nice and clean set down to it, it could be done.

I'm pretty sure I could do it, for example.

They're better now than they used to be.  I remember the last few versions of Dreamweaver (remember that? ) generated mostly well-formed code.

I think, though, for what they're used for (simple brochure-like sites, or small things like blogs), the code they generate isn't very important.  I wouldn't consider a site made with Wix's editor to be anything mission critical.  For anything 'real', with real, proprietary business logic in the back end, you're going to have actual designers and developers working on it, writing code themselves (with appropriate library/framework support, of course).

[bennyboy]

They're better now than they used to be.  I remember the last few versions of Dreamweaver (remember that? ) generated mostly well-formed code.

I think, though, for what they're used for (simple brochure-like sites, or small things like blogs), the code they generate isn't very important.  I wouldn't consider a site made with Wix's editor to be anything mission critical.  For anything 'real', with real, proprietary business logic in the back end, you're going to have actual designers and developers working on it, writing code themselves (with appropriate library/framework support, of course).

Yeah. To start with, I'd say any website that actually does anything is going to need a SQL database. There goes a fully auto-designed site out the window already.

These days, my focus is on really well-organized databases, and on the UI for getting new data into the system-- sound processing, text scanning and OCR, integrating with Android apps, etc. The front-end stuff is the easy part.

Especially in .ASP, because masterpages and .CSS themes make templating super-simple.

[AFTT47]

Maybe I'm a little bit off-topic here but my beef is with the entire design of "web 2.0".

IMO, Social Media is an absolute cancer. I have been with the web since its beginning and I see "social media" as a huge downgrade of the web experience. We used to have a rich environment of individuals creating their own websites, replete with their own individual creativity. Now, we have a web of mediocrity ruled by idiots.

Maybe we need a web 3.0 where the mass idiots can have their space and creative people can have their's. The problem is that even most of the creative people have bought into this Web 2.0 GARBAGE! I mourn the downgrade of the early internet as a forum for intelligent discourse into the soap opera it has become today.

[KevinM1]

Web 2.0 is so 2012  ...but, seriously, no one uses that term anymore.

I think social media could work if it wasn't controlled by people cynically gathering people's private information with the intent to sell it.  All of the problems surrounding it - mishandling people's information, harassment and abuse, the proliferation of false information (much of it from fake accounts and/or bots), etc. - are solvable.  It would take time, money, and a team dedicated to seeking out and removing bullshit (or suspending accounts), but that should be possible for multibillion dollar enterprises.

Regarding creative people vs normies, I think most creative people have some form of home/portfolio site (assuming you're using the word 'creative' to describe artists, musicians, designers, etc.).  It's just difficult and/or time consuming to maintain an interactive site on your own.

Like, look at Wil Wheaton.  He programmed and maintained his first blog himself.  But now?  His blog is WordPress, and he uses supplementary sites like Twitter and Tumblr.

I think there's also a danger in thinking that people that have neither the ability nor inclination to make their own sites are all idiots.  Yeah, social media brings out the worst in a lot of people, especially given the implied message of "your opinion, regardless of how misinformed, if not outright vile, it may be ought to be shared" inherent in these platforms, but not everyone is dumb enough to fall into that trap.