[Silhouette]

I respectfully disagree. I'd much prefer to understand the real technologies that run the web -- HTML, CSS, HTTP, and so on -- and then use tools and build abstractions on top when it's useful.

Starting with some specific framework or tool set inevitably limits what you can achieve. Surely the recent emphasis on frameworks over fundamentals has been a major contributor to the Web full of bland, practically identical sites that we see today.

[FLUX-YOU]

>Surely the recent emphasis on frameworks over fundamentals has been a major contributor to the Web full of bland, practically identical sites that we see today.

It used to be mostly plaintext and basic colors with no responsiveness, under construction gifs, basic images, and flashing text. Before that, just text. We're still learning as an industry. Web technology has not (and may never) settled like the hardware in your toolbox.

Those frameworks are geared for productivity, not possibility. Productivity is where the money is.

[Silhouette]

I think you overlooked about a decade where we'd moved well beyond slightly annotated text but hadn't yet entered the era of framework dominance. The Web was a smaller place then, but IMHO a much more interesting one in terms of trying out different designs and interaction styles.

As for productivity vs. possibility, I certainly don't dispute that productivity is one place where the money is[1]. However, that doesn't mean there isn't also room for innovation, and it certainly doesn't mean there's no money in doing things better than what you can achieve with Bootstrap, Angular, and a couple of junior developers who don't know much else. In an increasingly monotone and commoditised technology field, more interesting and/or effective presentation can certainly be a USP.

[1] I might question how sustainable that productivity proves to be over the longer term with many framework-heavy projects, but that's a separate issue and probably not worth getting distracted here.

[lmm]

I find bland, practically identical sites to be the most useful sites. The design gets out of the way and puts the important thing - the content - front and center.

[collyw]

I remember someone on here scoffing at Googles main page on an article on design. It seemed to have bypassed him that it was designed for usability not shiny-shiny design.

[saulrh]

A lot of these objections to abstraction sound like the objections to abstraction that we had back when we first invented interpreters and compilers. Are you sure that you want to be objecting to abstraction itself, rather than to our current, potentially inferior, implementations of abstractions?

[Silhouette]

I'm not objecting to abstractions at all. I'm just advocating understanding the fundamentals first.

I want to use abstractions and tools where they offer an additional benefit, but without being limited to whatever some predetermined choice of tools or abstractions can do.

[gelasio]

I think you missed the point of the post you're replying to. What's the reason that you feel that you want to understand the "real technologies" that run the web? So that you can build better apps with those technologies, right?

So, what you really want to do is just build some apps, not learn CSS. See the difference?

[Silhouette]

If we had been talking about means vs. ends, I would agree.

However, we were talking about knowing HTML and CSS vs. knowing abstractions built on top of them. In that context I didn't interpret the post I replied to the same way that you did.

[gelasio]

The person you were replying to did emphasized "wants to" vs "have to" though - so I think they were trying to insert the point about means vs ends. Anyway, whoever was trying to make that point - I think it's been made (however painfully).