11 ms·

supabase has the most schizoid brand. They should just embrace the fact that mobile devs don't want to do backend for their crud app rather than trying to be th

by rohan_ 1y ago

supabase has the most schizoid brand. They should just embrace the fact that mobile devs don't want to do backend for their crud app rather than trying to be the "everything backend". why are they releasing a web component library when React Native doesn't even have a decent UI library? Like who are supabase's customers again??

kiwicopple 1y ago
[supabase ceo] Despite the title "UI library", this is more like a "component registry" for developers to bootstrap their applications and it will work for everything from Web & Mobile, to database scaffolding. Perhaps some poor naming/positioning on our part. If you aren't familiar with shadcn, it works by dumping a bunch of files into your application which you can modify at your leisure. This is a different from something the "Bootstrap" approach where you could only do minimal tweaks to the theming.
- BoorishBears 1y ago
  The distribution person in me commends you for cashing in on the "component registry" hype in such a creative way. And that's not a backhanded use of the word creative: the moment it clicked was great, really just a smart application of something people are hyped about right now! But the developer in me, who realizes how bad we are at design realizes shadcn/ui is terrible for 99% of people using it. They don't have a design system, don't know what that even means, and their sinful hands should not be tweaking any UI libraries, at most being limited to modifying a rich set of theme tokens that force consistency... not touching individual components or copying in random cruft with hard coded gaps between elements. And so for all that (and also tl;dr) I wish you'd have just shipped actual versioned, buttoned-up components that are well thought out and themeable through tokens, just like your existing auth UI. You could have even made the default theme shadcn-like to satisfy all the people lying to themselves that one day they'll actually modify that ui folder.
  - jjani 1y ago
    > They don't have a design system, don't know what that even means, and their sinful hands should not be tweaking any UI libraries, at most being limited to modifying a rich set of theme tokens that force consistency I feel like the majority of shadcn users doesn't tweak it whatsoever though. In fact - I bet you a large percentage has never even considered the ability to tweak it, just seeing it as a plug-and-play set of UI components. Think old Android and iOS apps, where almost everyone just used the default components.
    - BoorishBears 1y ago
      I mentioned that: > You could have even made the default theme shadcn-like to satisfy all the people lying to themselves that one day they'll actually modify that ui folder. That's why shadcn is so terrible: you're resorting to diffs and a loose convention instead of a stable API and a package manager, for the promise that one day you can definitely probably modify it into something else... yet if you're the kind of person to start with shadcn/ui instead of Radix, you shouldn't be modding components in the first place. Even if you get real designers later, they're not going to try and "evolve" shadcn into your brand, they're going to start from scratch and you're back at Radix again.
      - jjani 1y ago
        > satisfy all the people lying to themselves that one day they'll actually modify that ui folder. What I'm saying - they're not lying to themselves that they'll do that. They've never even considered it as being something to potentially do! They consider it as a package to use as-is. "A re-design later on? Who knows, by that time we'll have people who know their UI stuff, they'll figure it out. Whether that will be based on shadcn? Who cares, not important." I bet the premise that all these people are using shadcn with the idea of some day modifying it just isn't the most common reality.
        BoorishBears 1y ago
        So you're just not familiar with shadcn then, that clears things up! The main selling points and source of shadcn's meteoric rise... - It's not a component library! - It's easy to customize! - You just Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V! - You can just edit it in your project! - No more fighting themes! - It's a kickstarter for your design system! (contrary to my words that you're repeating, many people choose shadcn/ui thinking it is going to make a meaningful difference in starting their own design system, people who have no business starting design systems especially) > I bet the premise that all these people are using shadcn with the idea of some day modifying it just isn't the most common reality. The thing is literally distributed via copied files and updated via diffs instead of being a package. The entire cargo cult that lead up to that is 100% the idea they'll modify it. It's just either don't out of apathy (and should have just used a component library), or do and do so terribly (and should have just used a component library).

by rohan_ 1y ago

kiwicopple 1y ago

[supabase ceo] Despite the title "UI library", this is more like a "component registry" for developers to bootstrap their applications and it will work for everything from Web & Mobile, to database scaffolding. Perhaps some poor naming/positioning on our part. If you aren't familiar with shadcn, it works by dumping a bunch of files into your application which you can modify at your leisure. This is a different from something the "Bootstrap" approach where you could only do minimal tweaks to the theming.

BoorishBears 1y ago
The distribution person in me commends you for cashing in on the "component registry" hype in such a creative way. And that's not a backhanded use of the word creative: the moment it clicked was great, really just a smart application of something people are hyped about right now! But the developer in me, who realizes how bad we are at design realizes shadcn/ui is terrible for 99% of people using it. They don't have a design system, don't know what that even means, and their sinful hands should not be tweaking any UI libraries, at most being limited to modifying a rich set of theme tokens that force consistency... not touching individual components or copying in random cruft with hard coded gaps between elements. And so for all that (and also tl;dr) I wish you'd have just shipped actual versioned, buttoned-up components that are well thought out and themeable through tokens, just like your existing auth UI. You could have even made the default theme shadcn-like to satisfy all the people lying to themselves that one day they'll actually modify that ui folder.
- jjani 1y ago
  > They don't have a design system, don't know what that even means, and their sinful hands should not be tweaking any UI libraries, at most being limited to modifying a rich set of theme tokens that force consistency I feel like the majority of shadcn users doesn't tweak it whatsoever though. In fact - I bet you a large percentage has never even considered the ability to tweak it, just seeing it as a plug-and-play set of UI components. Think old Android and iOS apps, where almost everyone just used the default components.
  - BoorishBears 1y ago
    I mentioned that: > You could have even made the default theme shadcn-like to satisfy all the people lying to themselves that one day they'll actually modify that ui folder. That's why shadcn is so terrible: you're resorting to diffs and a loose convention instead of a stable API and a package manager, for the promise that one day you can definitely probably modify it into something else... yet if you're the kind of person to start with shadcn/ui instead of Radix, you shouldn't be modding components in the first place. Even if you get real designers later, they're not going to try and "evolve" shadcn into your brand, they're going to start from scratch and you're back at Radix again.
    - jjani 1y ago
      > satisfy all the people lying to themselves that one day they'll actually modify that ui folder. What I'm saying - they're not lying to themselves that they'll do that. They've never even considered it as being something to potentially do! They consider it as a package to use as-is. "A re-design later on? Who knows, by that time we'll have people who know their UI stuff, they'll figure it out. Whether that will be based on shadcn? Who cares, not important." I bet the premise that all these people are using shadcn with the idea of some day modifying it just isn't the most common reality.
      - BoorishBears 1y ago
        So you're just not familiar with shadcn then, that clears things up! The main selling points and source of shadcn's meteoric rise... - It's not a component library! - It's easy to customize! - You just Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V! - You can just edit it in your project! - No more fighting themes! - It's a kickstarter for your design system! (contrary to my words that you're repeating, many people choose shadcn/ui thinking it is going to make a meaningful difference in starting their own design system, people who have no business starting design systems especially) > I bet the premise that all these people are using shadcn with the idea of some day modifying it just isn't the most common reality. The thing is literally distributed via copied files and updated via diffs instead of being a package. The entire cargo cult that lead up to that is 100% the idea they'll modify it. It's just either don't out of apathy (and should have just used a component library), or do and do so terribly (and should have just used a component library).