Frank Chimero

Great question. I created a series of UI frameworks and experiments starting around 2018 that evolved like: "react in 500 lines of JavaScript", Brutal.js, Vanillaview, Bang.html, Good.html. The ultimate one was a realization of a long held dream unifying web components with the JS tagged template literals and easy "drop in" event listeners and "granular DOM updates without 'shadow DOM'" of my previous creations in that lineage.

The starting point was I disliked React's complexity and its violation of the implicit contract of the web platform in that HTML, JavaScript and CSS should function as the standard, if they're going to look like the thing. By creating a parallel but subtly different HTML/CS/JS DSL, to me it corrupted the platform and weakened it overall. I thought it a flawed approach and still do, and longed to see something better, so I built something that had the ergonomics I wanted.

I also really liked the things that came along like HTMX, Stimulus, Hotwire, htmz, etc. That I saw as giving power to the platform by using its technologies, along the "web grain": https://frankchimero.com/writing/the-webs-grain/

I hoped my frameworks would take on React, but I came to see there's more to tech than superior tech. It's about tribalism, too. Similar to beta vs VHS. Even tho React and Angular are inferior in many ways, the have the distribution mechanism, brand recognition, and "choice safety".

Ability to hit the ground running is oft-touted but I think it's less…

Am I the only one who's intensely jealous of Linus? I'm 34, I've been coding prolifically since I was 9, and by 20 I was running on fumes. That was probably the last time it was any fun.

By now it's very hard to sustain anything remotely resembling motivation, especially having been around long enough to have been around the block with a few technology waves. This article, circulated on HN a while back, resonated with me more strongly than anything I've seen here in years:

https://frankchimero.com/blog/2018/everything-easy/

I'm completely burned out on it all, and I don't even do more than a few hours of coding a week many weeks. Even that takes some serious psychological effort to get into, and some weeks I don't manage it. Honestly, I'd much rather sit in meetings, answer e-mail, and advise others on architecture. I like talking and teaching, and people issues interest me fairly indefatigably. It very well might pay better, too, depending. Alas, I picked a business model that economically rewards me for coding--that other stuff is just non-revenue overhead.

I really hope a day comes soon when I can say, "I don't really get involved in code much anymore," before RSI and disinterest foreclose upon the possibility of a life worth living.

>There is a difference between web design and web application development.

His essay isn't really about documents vs apps.

It's about documents vs documents. Or more accurately,
he's lamenting about docs_simplesyntax vs docs_complicatedsyntax.

He shows an example of easy HTML syntax[1] that harkens back to "simpler times" in the olden days:

<html>
<head>
<title>My First Web Page</title>
</head>
<body>
My First Web Page
</body>
</html>

The problem with that is people want to author documents (not apps) that are more complicated (prettier, aesthetically pleasing column layouts, gradient backgrounds, drop caps, dynamic resizing of frames, and so on) that require more knowledge than his "hello world" type of simple HTML.

Even a web "document" like the wikipedia page on The Beatles[2] requires quite a bit of complexity and advanced HTML knowledge. I've been writing HTML on and off for 20 years and I'd have to do quite a bit of googling and stackoverflow research to replicate that wikipedia page.

[1] https://frankchimero.com/writing/everything-easy-is-hard-again/images/notepad.gif

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#Controversy,_final_tour_and_Revolver

This article is plain non sequitur.

The argument stated is that intelligence is multidimensional (stated as fact with caricature testimony) and therefore there exists a job aligned with one of those dimensions. Arguing that designers should code states that today optimal design is done by someone who has skill on multiple axes.

So the article really just dodges the issue by defining situations alternative to arguments made by Frank Chimero[1] makes and then pretending like that's a rebuttal.

He, of course, steps away from this ridiculous position toward the end by agreeing that designers could learn to code. Even suggesting it might not be a terrible idea, but this again misses the brunt of the pro argument:

Designers with strong understanding of implementation are better than those without.

I don't really want to argue that point in this comment—I'm not qualified. I just wanted to state that he never actually says anything concerning it.

[1]http://blog.frankchimero.com/post/9594863189

I agree with you -- I never use vulgar words, so I cannot use this word myself. That being said, maybe you saw this article being posted a few days ago: https://frankchimero.com/blog/2025/selling-lemons/ writing about the concept of "Market for Lemons". The last paragraph compares the two ideas:

> What makes the Market for Lemons concept so appealing (and what differentiates it in my mind from ens**tification) is that everyone can be acting reasonably, pursuing their own interests, and things still get worse for everyone. No one has to be evil or stupid: the platform does what’s profitable, sellers do what works, buyers try to make smart decisions, and yet the whole system degrades into something nobody actually wants.

(I don't know if Doctorow's concept really relies on malice.)

Did anybody notice that the 1997's Hello World example https://frankchimero.com/writing/everything-easy-is-hard-again/images/notepad.gif still works? Open the most easy built-in text editor on your system (even on Android one should be able to do that, isn't it), save it, open it with your browser locally.

In some aspects, the evolution of the web is similar to what the C language ecosystem experienced. It was dead simple in the beginning --- however the "Hello World" is still the same! Today's users are more demanding in terms of user interfaces and you will not go far without libraries. Same story with building modern "reactive" websites.

I personally like that CSS got more powerful, it allows us to build modern websites without JavaScript. That wasn't possible 20 years ago.