I'm writing a microservice in Perl using Sinatra, and Template::Toolkit as the templating engine. It works fine and gets the job done, but I'd like to add some more interactivity and friendliness to it, like firing-off HTTP GET requests and displaying an error/success banner in a non-intrusive way, depending on JSON results.
I'm a backend developer and usually stay far-the-fuck-away from frontend development. So, now I need some help. What JavaScript libraries or frameworks do you folks use these days for adding interactivity/responsiveness to your webapps? I could probably hack-together my own shit, but I'm lazy and I want to see if someone has solved these problems already.
And yes, bring on the memes and shitposting /g/, because we don't make fun of frontend web development enough.
Bump. A pathetic old backend dev needs help with keeping up with the times.
>>55091647
I'm a front end dev, and I do everything myself. I don't even use jQuery.
Fucking self centered back-end devs should suffer trying to figure out how good UIs are made. We don't get respect, you don't get help
>>55091892
>Fucking self centered back-end devs should suffer trying to figure out how good UIs are made. We don't get respect, you don't get help.
Has this been your personal experience with backend developers? I figured most of the "hipster" and shitting on frontend devs comes from people who don't know anything about development or who only pretend that they do, like most of /g/.
>>55091925
Yeah in my experience, front-end people get looked down on by back-end devs. They don't realize how much knowledge and talent it takes to create a good UI. Sorry for applying this stereotype to this thread, but the question sounded a little like "what library can I add to my project to make everything look purrty?", which is very much something the back-enders I know would ask. There's no single easy solution to UIs.
>>55091978
No, that's fine. I don't even care about the topic anymore, as I'm more interested in the schism between frontend and backend developers now.
Everyone seems to shit on them for being "hipsters" or for using JS all the fucking time, but I never hear any real arguments for or against why frontend dev/prettiness/responsiveness might be a lot harder than people think.
>>55092041
yeah I might be a bit special in that I'm also pretty good at back-end development (I just fucking love computers and basically programming anything at all gives me joy), but I'm more intrigued by getting users to actually like a UI. Learning about how to satisfy a user when interacting with even a boring application, what behavior a user would expect from the UI etc.
These are things most back-enders don't even start to think about. They often just know: here's the data the user should see, let's just put it on the screen, resulting in highly functional but also highly frustrating, ugly and cluttered UI.
Then there's the problem that everybody has different views on how something should be done. When developing an algorithm, you can pretty easily check whether it works correctly or not. When making a good UI, you have to constantly think about where stuff goes, what information should be displayed when, what should animate, what shouldn't etc.
Consistency is very important too. Okay/Cancel buttons switching positions would be really crappy design. If you want to get into it, look at many many designs. Find flaws. Think about what could be improved. How can the user BREAK stuff?
The actual implementation isn't that hard when you have actually thought about most of the elements you want to display, because you will have already figured out where something should be to be good - or at least okay - to use.
One thing I ALWAYS see back-enders do wrong is not using paddings. Whitespace is incredibly important for structuring your stuff. And get rid of unnecessary elements. (look up "remove to improve")
>>55092197
Heh, even though I'm mostly a backend dev, I see a lot of myself in you. I pay a lot of attention to UIs and how sane they are to use (both web and desktop applications), and the little details like missing padding (this gets me!) or buttons that randomly change order for no reason. Or other sins like stupidly small clickable surface areas, such as when you can click a checkbox, but not the text. Or UI elements and popups that serve to do nothing but waste people's time as it hogs focus over the entire app. Or making extremely-common tasks hidden behind like 4 clicks.
Most of the UIs I make are the standard, ugly programmer affair, but only because I'm usually the only person who'll use it, and because the time prettifying it could be spent doing other more productive things.
Maybe it's time I start taking frontend UI/UX as a serious endeavour, because I think I do have an eye for it. Or at the very least, I'm keenly aware of what a good user experience *isn't*.
I also wonder if it's an empathy thing, because you have to constantly put yourself in other people's shoes, and for example, simulate what a complete novice might do or assume and balance that against what a poweruser who doesn't need hand-holding might want in a UI. And the people who are really good at lower-level stuff... let's just say empathy might not be their strongest suite.
Anyway, I'm done thought-barfing. I'll look up "remove to improve", because less-is-more is something I've really taken to heart in recent years (as someone formerly obsessed with tinkering and customizability).
God just kiss eachother already
>>55092437
>I think I do have an eye for it
you sound like you have. That's a very important part.
"remove to improve" are a few quite short videos I like to show people who don't know anything about UIs. You don't seem like that.
So if you want to make a good web ui, basically just put the elements you want to display in a nice thought out structure, (I usually only use divs for everything, even buttons and text-boxes, because it gives me the most control over their looks) and then style it with css. Javascript for interaction (buttons etc).
I don't know your level of knowledge, so it's a bit hard to tell you stuff that actually is new to you and helps you.
css is quite powerful and should provide almost everything needed for styling, though stuff that depends on sizes of elements can be tricky or impossible. Then you need js.
jQuery is very established and I heard bootstrap is a nice library to create somewhat pretty interfaces quickly. I don't use these though, because it takes control away from me and does stuff that I may not expect (especially bootstrap).
>>55092545
>don't use bootstrap
How do you design for multiple devices? Just raw CSS and test everything on various form factors? Wouldn't that trial and error take forever?
>>55092645
not really. I think about the target devices and what min/max resolutions to expect, input methods etc. Then I basically test with these and it worked out well so far.
I usually design in a way that I know will work in any form factor
>>55092437
>I also wonder if it's an empathy thing, because you have to constantly put yourself in other people's shoes, and for example, simulate what a complete novice might do or assume and balance that against what a poweruser who doesn't need hand-holding might want in a UI. And the people who are really good at lower-level stuff... let's just say empathy might not be their strongest suite.
Guess that confirms that I'm staying backend forever, thanks.
Go learn golang and go from there
Javascript on the backend is for devs who started with javascript and are too stupid to learn new languages
>>55092746
That's no problem. Let the people do it who know their shit. But have respect for them too.
>>55092771
OP here, and I already know Golang. But what does that have to do with my question? I don't think maladapting a language suited for systems / network-servers for web development is going to help anything.
>>55092786
Easier imo to get a front-end job. No one likes seeing some fugly site no matter the functionality. Not like frontend is impossible though, just takes a bit of extra effort to not look like 1999.
