[dsego]

> building your own UI library

It's one more thing to maintain, and it's also difficult to push back on things. If you use off the shelf components it's much easier to say to designers and managers that a UX pattern is not available or not valid. You can point to the mature well known community owned UI library you use and make it authoritative. It's harder to do it if you build your own, suddenly each designer and developer is throwing things in there, adding features etc. It's also difficult to agree on the structure, so the components are well thought out, flexible, but also not so flexible to lose semantics. It's not an easy job, do you use slots, composition, rendering callbacks, there are too many decisions and you spend time building the UI library instead of actually shipping features.

[notpushkin]

It is true, yeah. But it allows you to own the brand identity, which is kinda useful if you have a brand.

I think we’ve found the holy grail with one of my clients recently. Our UI kit follows https://mui.com/ wherever makes sense, but we implement the components ourselves. This means (1) we don’t have to make too many architecture decisions – we just do whatever MUI does, and (2) it’s fairly easy to push back against adding features that don’t add a lot of value and deviate too much from, well, whatever MUI does.

[threetonesun]

Odd to me when I read stuff like this but also posts about how AI is making everything trivial. Surely a thing that almost every company did in the early 2000s should not be hard today, but of course today you can’t just write HTML + CSS, you must consider every front end framework introduced in the last decade.

[dsego]

I remember the 2000s web, it was primitive. It's not hard to combine some html and css, it is hard to support more complex dynamic actions and components, all with consistent theming and behaviors and have them composable and reusable.