It's partly a case of people mean different things when they talk about "a grid" and how they would use a grid. Bootstrap popularized one simplified model of layout they called "Grid", and MUI is continuing a version of that. CSS Grid is an attempt to unify that simpler "Grid" with more powerful grid constructs and as a more generalized 2D layout engine. It takes the things learned from Flexbox and Table layout and tries to unify them into a sane 2D layout system that has the power of both and additional tools.
I think you can replace nearly every use of Flexbox (and Tables for layout) with CSS Grid and have overall better dev ergonomics. The `grid-template-areas` tool and named areas can be great dev ergonomics far better than anything that came before it in CSS, especially if you have highly responsive layout needs and/or desire to decouple HTML source order with layout order (for better, cleaner accessibility, for one instance; or for cleaner streaming order on slow pages, as another reason).
It has a learning curve more than the simpler "Bootstrap-era" Grid designs, certainly, but I think it's an easier learning curve than Flexbox (but esp. if you've already learned Flexbox, because they share a number of concepts).
Another big problem is that designers never got the "semantic" bit. I don't know how much of that is that most designers aren't used to thinking systematically and like to design a page at a time instead of a system for a whole site and how much of it is CSS being structurally wrong. So we have MUI and bootstrap to impose an application-like structure or tailwind to just "do what I mean".
In the example there is a mixture of style and content. This would be of course more ergonomic. However, the strength of CSS is that you can decide later on to change the style without touching the content.
This article simply reinforces existing (and outdated) biases.
Complex legacy refactoring + Systems with poor documentation or unusual patterns + Architectural decisions requiring deep context: These go hand in hand. LLMs are really good at pulling these older systems apart, documenting, then refactoring them, tests and all. Exacerbated by poor documentation of domain expectations. Get your experts in a room weekly and record their rambling ideas and history of the system. Synthesize with an LLM against existing codebase. You'll get to 80% system comprehension in a matter of months.
Novel problem-solving with high stakes: This is the true bottleneck, and where engineers can shine. Risk assessment and recombination of ideas, with rapid prototyping.
> I get the feeling GCP is not good for individuals like I.
Google isn't good for individuals at all. Unless you've got a few million followers or get lucky on HN, support is literally non-existent. Anyone that builds a business on Google is nuts.
I'd like to state the AWS, in contrast, has been great to me as an individual. The two times that I needed to speak to a human, I had one on the phone resolving my issue. And both issues were due to me making mistakes - on my small personal account.
Yes, it’s extremely complicated. I gave up on fire base for one project because I could not figure out how to get the right permissions set up and my support request resulted in someone copying and pasting a snippet from the instructions that I obviously had not understood in the first place.
It’s also extremely cumbersome to sign up for Google AI. The other day I tried to get deep seek working via Google’s hosted offering and gave up after about an hour. The form just would not complete without error and there was not a useful message to work with.
It would seem that in today’s modern world of AI assistance, Google could set up one that would help users do the simplest things. Why not just let the agent direct the user to the correct forms and let the user press submit?
Oh man, I've been playing with GCP's vertex AI endpoints, and this is so representative of my experience. It's actually bananas how difficult it is, even compared to other GCP endpoints
