Should I learn Wappler instead of learning to code manually??

OH and if by this:

You mean this disaster of nearly unwatchable gaff where clearly nobody was even prepared to be on stage:



You'll find a lot of people will call it out for not actually saying anything of value, having no meat, no practical examples, and again reeking more of propaganda -- ESPECIALLY glittering generalities and testimony -- than any actual fact. It is utterly lacking in merit, and has been crafted to lure in the types of suckers who'll yum up manure as if it were chocolate soft-serve if you just wrap it up in the waffle cone of hippy-dippy "feel good" marketspeak. It is utterly devoid of anything remotely resembling substance, and reeks of the type of indoctrinational nonsense I'd more expect from a Jack Preacher peddling faith healing to morons than any actual intelligent discussion on the topic.

Excepting the fact the presenters have about 1/10th the charisma, personality, or charm of your typical collar wearing snake oil peddler, stumbling over their own words worse than the orange cheeto-fingered commander in half-tweet.

The only part of the entire video that has anything of merit is when the guy is talking about FF profiling and tools, things that have dick-all to do with "no-code".

 

Are you are serious web-developer or a Sunday driver, school kid, an old developer past their sell-by-date and can't keep up with what's happening in the industry or just a business orientated spiv wishing to push out a dodgy app to make a fast buck but hasn't got the finances to employ someone professionally to produce the job for you? All of those would fit into the category of 'who' uses twerpy workflows such as Wix, Webflow, Wappler, Square Space etc. These people can be forgiven.

However a serious developer, who is looking for a long-term career within the industry depending upon a workflow which they have zero control over is heading for a serious fall and a very short career!

 

A feel good "Glittering generality" that whilst mostly true in a "card stacking" manner, exists to "transfer" your feelings for something they had nothing to do with to their movement. Given the technology being promoted flips the bird at "delivering content to EVERYONE" -- one of the things that made the Internet catch on in the first place, this is duplicitous disingenuous double-talk.

Which has little to nothing to do with the topic of this thread, or the development of actual websites... the TOPIC of this thread. Relevance ZERO. Has nothing to do with building a website.

If by valid you mean off-topic, short sighted, and utterly irrelevant to SITE BUILDING.

Can't believe anyone is THIS gullible... but to be fair I say the same thing about people of faith.

Look, I'm all for creativity of CONTENT assuming it at least meets grammatical norms... but again these glittering generalities, feel-good hippy dippy catch-phrases, whilst ignoring FACTS has its limits. Particularly when we've seen these same scams come and go a dozen times over two and a half decades.

All that "wah wah, I wunna beez creative" malarkey means nothing if you're alienatiing large swaths of your potential userbase in the process! What's your answer to the accessibilty front? You STILL keep dancing around that issue flat you ignoring it.

Again, making it seem like you just don't give a shit. Answer this question: Do you REALLY give a damn about search, usability, and accessibility? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. Don't make another post filled with blindly and ignorantly parroting propaganda. Admit it, you just don't give a shit about things that could limit your audience, limit your reach, and even land you in court! All because "wah wah, I hate people smarter than me"

Which honestly, is EXACTLY what your ranting and raving about the evil "coders" sounds like. Just like when creationists, anti-vaxxers, and other such morons attack science.

... and again, right out of the marketspeak double-talk playbook; lame excuse #3 and a indication that people are using glittering generalities to try and deflect from the facts. I'm waiting now for you to use the words "proactive" and "paradigm" so I can win this hand of bullshit bingo.

"Engaging user experience" seeming to mean the exact opposite; artsy bling bling crap that pisses off users over how long it takes to load, and tells users who aren't perfectly sighted, on a high end computer, with endless high speed fiber connects, to go perform a lewd anatomically impossible act upon themselves. It's another of those "glittering generalities" that sounds great, but what does it really mean? Turns out it means entirely different things to different people.

Ah yes, "testimonial".

Which probably meant she had shitty developers -- and yes, there's a LOT of those out there. Usually they're the ones using frameworks on the back end and even dumber frameworks on the front-end because they don't know enough HTML, CSS, or JavaScript to be doing any of the above. The ones who turn 2 hours work into a week, and 4 weeks worth into six months. The things you are advocating are more often than not MORE to blame for that than "oh they're using code". An EFFICIENT coder who bothers paying attention to why HTML exists, why CSS is separate from it, how to do things in a way where the result gracefully degrades for accessibility, and do things in a fraction the time any drag-and-drop derp or "I cans haz freemewurks" know-nothings crap things together. It's bad when these artsy-fartsy halfwit "landing pages" are so devoid of content of value, users bounce before you even have a chance at a conversion, much less their even figuring out what your site is about!

Though it's a common claim that holds no truth to it, that these frameworks and tools make things "faster" or "easier" or "better" -- when again there's zero truth to it and if people believe it, there's little more to it than confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and "Wizard's First Rule" in action.

Which is why the dipshit broken garbage that is webflow is a step SIDEWAYS, a placebo to make her THINK it was easy or that she has a quality product... whilst in a year she goes out of business from being ignored by search, pissing off visitors to the pages, whilst spending the entire time at risk of civil or even criminal litigation depending on the site's topic/purpose.

At least in terms of the incompetent trash Webflow vomits up and has the gall to call a website / web app / front-end!

As someone who uses that word a good deal...


If anyone sounds like they're afraid of technology, it's you. Blindly parroting the fear-mongering BS and bad practices because "wah wah, I don't want to learn coding and I'm afraid of people who know it." You blatantly ignore facts and any arguments that gut your belief, just like a cut-rate cultist.

NOT something to be proud of.

AGAIN if you'd pay attention to anything anyone else is saying in this thread, it's bad when the result tells users on mobile to "kiss my grits" through draining their battery due to bloat and "JS for nothing". It's bad when it tells users with accessibility needs to "kiss my grits". It's bad when in many fields and types of sites it's in violation of accessibility laws in a way that borders upon if not outright is a sociopathic lack of empathy. It's bad when it costs more to host when/if it ever gets real traffic. It's bad when the crappy choices result in no real traffic because search starts penalizing you over speed and accessibility issues.

As such, my question is what the blazes is so good about it?

As always it's the same BS as when I started out and everyone was singing the praises of Nyetscape Composer... then two years later everyone was singing the praises of Microsoft Frontpage. Then we spent a decade of derps who wouldn't know design from the hole in their arse who sang the praises of Dreamweaver... Then turdpress... and the result has always been the same.

Broken slow inaccessible websites that tell the most important part of building a site -- THE AUDIENCE -- to go f*** themselves. And why? Because some know-noting goes "wah wah, eye dunz wunna lurns" or tries to sleaze by on as little effort as possible, resulting in them being saddled up and taken for a ride by scam artists promising the sky whilst delivering mud.

Aka one of the many pitfalls of "false simplicity" in action. It looks simple, you're told it's simple. You want it to be simple so you'll believe any amount of lies that support the idea... when in fact it's been "dumbed down" beyond the complexity needed to actually accomplish the task! At least in a proper way according to any sane requirements.

But as always you'll just reply with more blind parroting of propaganda devoid of relevant facts, fail to address any of the concerns we would have with the steaming pile you're fanboying over, and post YET ANOTHER (Trademark pending) "wah wah, is not".

 

Side note, Goebbels would stand in rock-star awe at the copypasta of "the big lie" propaganda techniques presented so far here. It's damned near right out of the average 3rd year marketing textbook examples... and a few Psychology texts too. Hence the cost-benefit analysis stuff that reeks of preconceived conclusions ala self-discrepancy and balance theory.

The "rank-and-file" are so easy to manipulate, they'll believe almost anything if you smile enough and fake being "genuine" and "sincere" enough, wrapping it all in soothing-syrup feel good nonsense. Tell people what they want to hear, who cares what the truth is.

To hell with that and to hell with that type of sleazy dirtbag predator behavior.

Hence why if people say "It's not what was said but how it was said" or "If you'd only heard so and so talk about it" I automatically assume I'm dealing with a moron. More so if they can't even recall what was said in terms of supporting facts or logic, and instead blindly parrot meaningless "glittering generalities".

It's SHOCKING how easily people are suckered by high and mighty sounding words they don't even seem to understand, just because they're in a mob and the piper is charismatic.

 

Figurative fairy tales are not fact, nor relevant. Particularly when talking about an entirely different type of media (video).

How is youtube a "development solution". If we're talking VIDEO than a development solution would be Premier, or shotcut, or lightworks. The CONTENT has nothing to do with web development, and youtube is simply a delivery system. They're not building a unique website for a business, they're a delivery website FOR videos. In that context your argument means exactly two things; and Jack left town.

... and of course such a video delivery site would be utter shite if it were built with webflow.

Starting to sound like you don't even know what development is.

Honestly if HTML and CSS are "so hard" you think of it in those terms, you've REALLY been packed full of bullshit. These things are so moronically simple it's mind-blowing how hard PEOPLE make it. Even more mind-blowing how people who make the types of tools your advocating are utterly incapable of using it properly.

I'd LOVE to see a tool like these where the result client-side wasn't utter garbage. LOVE TO SEE IT! -- but webflow and its kin/kine aren't it. They are clearly MADE by people who have no business telling others how to make websites! I've never seen it done, and I have serious doubts it could even be done.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that webflow was created by the same type of incompetent, mentally challenged "evil coders" you're against. Because it's painfully apparent that in creating their system, they went about EVERYTHING "the hard way". That's why they're vomiting up ten times the HTML, ten times the CSS, and 50 times the JavaScript needed to do the job whilst telling users to __fill_in_the_blank_expletive_saying_"you don't matter"_here__.

So talk about that. Address the shortcomings and provide SOME defense of it other than "wah wah, is not" and ramblings that have dick-all to do with the topic!

Tyranny of code? Wow... Again, "wah wah, eye dunz wunna lurns ur tie-ps."

If you cared about accessibility and reaching people you wouldn't be advocating systems that tell the end users that you've got two words for them. Suck it!

Once again, your'e being dismissive of the fact the result is shit, in favor of letting people crap things out any-old-way who gives a damn about the audience. When the result is incompetent broken useless SHIT, I don't care how the blazes easy it ALLEGEDLY is for the people making the site.

... and that's the problem you're flat out ignoring and refusing to address. THE RESULT IS UTTER AND TOTAL GARBAGE telling large swaths of users to perform self rectal examinations.

I honestly believe that neither HTML or CSS are beyond the average person's time or comprehension. They only remain so out of bad practices, outdated and incorrect advice, and a reek of ignorance amongst those on all sides of the topic. I can teach in a one on one session the average person to make a better website than anything these WYSIWYG's could make, in about four hours. 90% of the knowledge to do the front end properly top to bottom, up, down, forwards, and backwards within that scope... 4 hours of learning. IT ISN'T THAT HARD!!!

Crappy tutorial sites like W3Fools, L33t coders who want programming to be difficult (we actually sound more alike on that topic than you might realize), garbage "visual' systems that gloss over many of the most important aspects of content delivery, an inability to keep it in your pants when it comes to goofy "bling bling" crap that should only impress five year olds and actually gets in the way of users doing what it is they came to your site to do -- THESE are the things that make it hard.

In a "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!" sort of way.

Anyone who graduated fifth grade English should be able to handle the concepts of HTML. It is NOT some giant esoteric hard to do thing that any rational adult needs to be so afraid of, that they'll run headlong into some scam artists arms.

But here we are.

It's actually part of why I'm so passionate about this, I genuinely believe that pretty much anyone is actually smart enough to do HTML and CSS directly and learn the basics of it -- and why it's so disheartening that normal people believe it's some great difficult task they need to be afraid of, and so many "experts" in the field have zero damned clue what they're doing.

It's like these derpy "twelve step" programs where the first thing they tell you is that you're helpless to help yourself. How insulting is that? Hence they're not there to actually help you, they're just there to make you dependent on whatever lie they happen to be peddling.

As technology spreads it does become discrimination when the tool in question is supposed to be designed for such users! It's why HTML was created in the first damned place, is something COMPETENT developers bake in from the very start, and why failing to address it is in violation of accessibility laws in multiple nations. If you can't be bothered to incorporate that in the very tool created to that end (HTML), do the world a favor, back the blazes away from the keyboard, and go take up something a bit less detail oriented like macramé.

The CREATORS of webflow being so ignorant on these simple concepts, I bet they wasted months if not years on doing a few weeks worth of work just making their bloody system! That their tool doesn't use semantics even on the parts that should be static across all sites bespeaks to their utterly having been unqualified to even make such a tool in the first damned place!

And again, I'd LOVE to see such a tool made where these concerns were addressed -- but I've never seen it done and have severe doubts the concept is even viable.

Ah yes, Ping-dumb... where if you want to know how fast it loads directly off a backbone, they're your boy. You want to know how long it takes real-word for most users, multiply their time estimate by a factor of ten... It's not a bad tool, but their "time it took" is utterly irrelevant data since it's how fast it is on their utterly insane high throughput connection, and is not representative of what a normal user can expect.

Pay attention to their ratings! That "D" rating is not a good sign. Said rank being so low because of the fact the page is slopped together from 170+ separate files sucking down 7.5 megabytes when there's only 3.3k of plaintext and around 16 content images. NOT EVEN 10k of HTML's job for the home page, 48k of CSS for the entire SITE, or 32k of JavaScript if JavaScript is even needed at all. All whilst feeding me a giant blank page by default because they derp the content in with AJAX with zero graceful degradation fallback -- leading one to question if the content isn't even in it what the hell type of asshat ineptitude it takes to come up with 50k of markup.

Hence it taking around 30 seconds to load here, and in handshaking ALONE a real-world estimate just for file counts being anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes! Just because pingdom's magical fiber-land connection or whatever you happen to have is fast, doesn't change the fact that with 170 separate files it can take MINUTES to load for "normal people" across most of the US! That's JUST in handshaking! (aka requesting all those separate files) hence that big goose-egg in the red warning box.

Sure, people in LA, Florida, Chicagoland, DC, or NYC might get the page quick as a few seconds. It's telling everyone else to bugger off. Hence why despite pingdom saying 1.96 seconds here for a NYC test, it still barely manages a passing grade of D-.



See all those "F"'s, that's developer ineptitude of the highest order in action. The people who MADE webflow aren't fit to tie someone's shoes, much less tell others how to make websites.

By embracing even shittier developers who suckered you in by slapping the rose coloured glasses on your head and leading you down the garden path to failure? Hell of a plan right there. Given the result their broken trash system vomits up, the fact you'd defend this trash WHILE complaining about "coders" shows that to be brutally frank, you're suffering BADLY from the Dunning-Kruger effect. You don't even know enough to realize how little you know.

Exactly the type of greenhorn these dirtbag predators look for; taking advantage of your hopes, fears, dreams, and ignorance.

You've been suckered, the only question being how long before you realize it.

 

Are you trying to tell us that people are TOO IGNORANT to learn a language (HTML) which contains LESS than 200 words (tags) when they have NO PROBLEM learning English that contains roughly 500 THOUSAND words?

Timewise webflow.com loads fast for me, BUT THE PAGE THAT IS SERVED UP IS A TOTAL DISASTER. First impressions count, and my first impression of their site is they are TOTAL IDIOTS. If their code is as bad as their presentation (I did not look at the code), then webflow is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

 

Zero control means you are totally beholden to a workflow of which you have no say over, the costs, what is included and what is not, when it is included, if its sold, if it ceases to exist. You are effectively reduced to the status of a robot with someone else pulling your strings. The mark of good developer, a professional developer is one that isnt reduced to the level of being useless on account of placing all their eggs in one basket.

 

Would it not be possible to make host companies legally responsible for
the ADA, or the UK equivalent, violations of the sites that they host?
​

coothead

 

Not a good idea. That is the same as holding you responsible for how someone else uses a product that you sell.

Second, it would not be economically possible for the hosts to verify every site they host.

Third, it would require the host to validate EVERY change to EVERY site EVERY time there is a change, even if only a typo.

The internet would disappear overnight.

 

Is that not like saying a television company has no responsibility for the
programs which it broadcasts?
​

Well the excrement, of which genuine professionals such as @deathshadow
so eloquently complain, would definitely be cleansed.
​

coothead

 

No, it's like saying Sony has no responsibility for what ABC airs, or owners who use their device to watch porn.

You're advocating what sounds and awful lot like the "Ban the crayons" paradox that came out of the Bethesda game modding world, where dipshit censoring groups like PEGI wanted to add a "Mature audiences only" badge to ANY game that could have fan mods applied to it... thing is that would be ANY game. Just because I can replace the skin textures in Tomb Raider so Lara's running around in the buff, doesn't mean the base game warrants an R rating.

Hence "I can draw XXX rated images with crayons, does that mean we ban the crayons?" -- which is basically what a lot of censorship fans seem to think about all different forms of media.

People print ransom notes on printers, do we ban printers? People commit felonies with cars, does that mean we should ban cars?

It's only in cases where the "proper and intended use" of the device in question is automatically endangering the well being, or is malicious in intent that such an approach should be advocated. See Gwenyth Paltrow, Mercola, or the douche calling himself an Avocado for examples of said malicious intent.

 

Hi there deathshadow.

well as much as I agree with your views on good coding practice,
it seems to me that your crusade against those who, through
dumb stupidity or ignorance, use Bootcrap, Turdpress and their
ilk is rather like Don Quixote's tilting at windmills.
​

No, I was not advocating, but rather suggesting that other
methods might be considered to address the problems
about which you are so passionate but, sadly, have not
the wherewithal to resolve.
​

coothead