[lmm]

> HTML/CSS is native and understanding it is a requirement for React.

It's not necessary and the ROI is poor IMO, especially for CSS. Better to just use React for everything and not worry about the implementation details; yes those details will sometimes help you debug, just like knowing machine code will occasionally help you debug your compiled code, but it's not something to put a lot of your learning budget into.

> It also doesn't require Node and a build step.

The point is assuming you already have node and a build step. You already know React. So just use it for everything. Everyone who thinks they can "just write HTML/CSS" ends up introducing Hugo or Gatsby or whatnot (or, worse, writing their own "simple" Makefiles and shell scripts) and gradually adding more and more features until it's just as complex as React. Just use React.

[satvikpendem]

> It's not necessary and the ROI is poor IMO, especially for CSS. Better to just use React for everything and not worry about the implementation details; yes those details will sometimes help you debug, just like knowing machine code will occasionally help you debug your compiled code, but it's not something to put a lot of your learning budget into.

...what? What are you writing in React if not HTML tags and CSS classes? How can you even write anything in React without that? React doesn't do anything CSS specific either, so I don't understand how you'd even style anything if HTML and CSS were not a "necessity."

[lmm]

> What are you writing in React if not HTML tags and CSS classes?

UIs made of React components. I try to avoid having to know or care about the underlying implementation details.

[KronisLV]

> I try to avoid having to know or care about the underlying implementation details.

This feels quite ignorant. I'm not sure, in some ways I understand it, for example, when running software on the JVM, I typically don't think about how it's implemented, so I share some of that ignorance.

At the same time, specializing to just knowing one technology (e.g. React) and not caring about up or down the stack can also be limiting - both for any career moves (Vue? Angular? working with how the resources are packaged and deployed?) as well as just debugging things in more detail (since one can feasibly imagine cases where you need to look at both the output HTML/CSS/JS to understand why certain things are happening, not just a React plugin in DevTools).

You don't have to learn things that are of no value right now, but you probably shouldn't go out of your way to not learn things. Staying curious is generally pretty nice!

[lmm]

I mean, sure, I do actually know a bunch of the details and it's occasionally useful for debugging. But I look for ways to work at the React level if possible (e.g. using the React dev tools to debug the component hierarchy rather than using the raw browser dev tools where possible). IME it's better to fully specialise in a small set of technologies than to dabble across a wider range.

[satvikpendem]

And what are in those components? Divs with a className property I assume? Or are you literally only using components other people have made in UI libraries with no changes of your own?

[lmm]

I generally use preexisting components, there's not a lot of value add in creating my own date picker or dropdown box or whatever. Obviously I put my own content in, and compose together existing components to make bigger new components if the component I want doesn't exist (e.g. if I couldn't find an address entry component I might make one out of individual text entry components). I think some of the components I use might actually be or correspond to "basic" HTML tags, but that doesn't make any difference at the point of use.

If a component doesn't have built-in styling support (i.e. configurable via React properties) then I'll use Tailwind so I can at least ignore all the selectors and cascading nonsense of CSS. (I remain hopeful that the world will eventually see that inline styling is the way to go; with Tailwind I meet them halfway)

[satvikpendem]

Okay, well you do realize you're not the average programmer right? I'd even say this is junior level if you are not really creating your own code and components, so it's not accurate to say that HTML and CSS are not "necessary" unless you're doing what seems to be very basic work. And Tailwind is still CSS, again, so without knowing what things like flex actually do, you can't use Tailwind either. I'm beginning to suspect you may just use AI to build much of your code for you.

[likium]

If your company has a good component library, you can really stay in that circle for 95% of the time. If you need that 5%, usually there's a library unless you're doing something really bespoke like canvas/webgl.

And AI really can do a lot of work nowadays. I met a founder who built their entire mvp with v0.dev. 5 pages, multiple flows, modals with photo taking/uploading and working color picker. They only needed to add the api-calling logic.

[lmm]

> I'd even say this is junior level if you are not really creating your own code and components

Must be a case of the midwit meme, or https://cspages.ucalgary.ca/~robin/class/449/Evolution.htm . Intermediate programmers satisfy their ego by writing everything themselves; a real experienced professional knows that custom code or a complex technology stack is a liability, and delivers the functionality the business needs in the way that will impose the smallest maintenance burden.

> it's not accurate to say that HTML and CSS are not "necessary" unless you're doing what seems to be very basic work.

Disagree. You need to be able to lay things out, compose components, and hook up behaviour. But you don't need to use the lowest level languages to do that, any more than you need to write all your programs in machine code. You need to understand the DOM, but that doesn't mean you need to express it in HTML, and similarly for layout.

> Tailwind is still CSS, again, so without knowing what things like flex actually do, you can't use Tailwind either.

You need to understand layout and styling properties, sure. But you can skip the things that make CSS CSS - selectors, cascading, and the like - which the industry is ever so gradually starting to recognise for the failures they are.

> I'm beginning to suspect you may just use AI to build much of your code for you.

LOL. Is this projection, or just reaching for any possible way to smear me? The AI fanboys are happy to mix a dozen technologies in their project because the AI "understands" all of them equally well - mix React and CSS and HTMX and what have you, why not? I'm actually genuinely curious about your thought process here (if you had one), can you talk through what lead you to this bizarre idea?