It's a wireframing tool akin to figma. You create the design for your website/app there, then hand it over to a programmer who implementd it in html/react/flutter/wpf/etc
This is always the piece that disappoints me when seeing this and other similar tools.
Surely it is an obvious next step to offer export to e.g. React, React Native, SwiftUI…?
Otherwise you spend days, weeks, months crafting your perfect design down to the pixel, and then someone else has to start again from scratch with a totally different approach. Maybe I’m missing something, but that feels incredibly inefficient and regressive.
> Surely it is an obvious next step to offer export to e.g. React, React Native, SwiftUI…?
These UI frameworks do not really operate in a "down to the pixel" way and so getting correspondance between a bitmap design and a representation in the UI framework is far from an "obvious next step" (if it were trivial to add such a feature, then of course the developers of these tools would add it).
Various concerns that aren't captured in the bitmap design - like how your screens transition from one to another, etc - can dramatically affect how the UI is implemented in a target framework. This is the job of UI engineers.
Well, used to be. Now it's vibe code all the way down.
Sure, I understand the going from a raster design image to a working prototype in one of the frameworks is not easily automated.
However, I would’ve thought it would be feasible to create a design tool with this in mind, so the same fundamental design structure could be output either to the internal preview, or (any?) one of the target frameworks.
Your tone is disagreement, but it's not clear why?
There is an individual who you trust to do good work, and who works well with you. They're not anonymous. Addressing the topic of this thread, you know (or should know) that it is not AI slop.
That is a significant amount of knowledge and trust in an individual, and the very point I thought the GP was making.
This is one of those articles that is too obsessed with amusing itself with its own pretentiousness to communicate anything interesting - which is ironic given the author seems thinks they prefer communications to entertainment.
You seem to be talking about a production-grade model rather than building an LLM as an exercise? Or if not, why do you disagree with the article's example of building a small LLM for $100?
I think I should have replied as a totally separate comment. This is my mistake.
It is nice that the author shared the results of his exercise / experiment. Just got sad as I was reminded (when the 100 USD were mentioned) that all this game is 90%+ about money and hardware rather than skills.
That being said I really like the initiative of the author.
I understand the emotional aspect of feeling like it’s out of reach for you.
Thing is, if you focus on your own skill development and apply it at even a small scale, very few people do that. Then you go for a job and guess what, the company has resources you can leverage. Then you do that, and ultimately you could be in a position to have the credibility to raise your own capital.
Not at all. The majority with the current AI craze not really about credibility or skills. It's like a kitchen.
Take a genius chef but give him rotten ingredients. He sweats, he tries, but the meal is barely edible. That's the $100 exercise, but only experts recognize the talent behind.
Take an unskilled cook but give him A5 Wagyu and prepared truffles. The result tastes amazing to the average person who will claim the chef is great (the investors).
It's about access to capital and selling a story ('ex'-Googler doesn't make you competent), not skills.
Great chefs in dark alleys go unnoticed.
Mediocre tourist traps near the Eiffel Tower are fully booked.
Look at Inflection AI. Average results, yet massive funding. They have the "location" and the backing, so they win. It's not about who cooks better; it's about who owns the kitchen but who sells a dream that tomorrow the food will be better.
We don't talk about small funding, we talk about 1.3 billion USD, just for that specific example, yet a tourist trap (using name-dropping / reputation instead of talent)
Snake-oil is rewarded as much as, or even more than real talent; a lot of people cannot see the difference between a chef and the ingredients, this is what I think is sad.
That is true for many kinds of software where you need a big amount of resources. No matter how skilled I am, I cannot build Facebook, Google, Photoshop alone. But a tiny version of it just to learn? Why not!
I pay for a lot of software eg I used Screen Studio a couple of times, liked it, dropped a couple hundred bucks for it. Good work from a solo dev.
Datastar have basic functionality in the pro license. Basic UX capabilities like animation and copy to clipboard.
The devs aren’t “very clear” that most people should never need the license. That’s just PR. They’ve picked a bunch of features that even a teenage hobbyist might want to use as part of a trivial application. There’s no relationship between the locked features and their value or complexity.
I would avoid any web framework that might get in my face like this, at some random moment working on a pet project to try out a new thing, with an invoice demanding payment if I want to use random features.
“Perhaps this is a problem that you might like to address yourself?”
No I’m good, thanks. The Datastar community needs some work, going by the attitude of their defenders in this thread. Someone else is saying the way they charge money isn’t a monetization strategy. It’s nonsense.
Nothing wrong with charging money. Just be honest about it, take it in the chin when people don’t want to buy, and ideally have a pricing strategy that makes sense.
A todo list is a unique thing, it’s about remembering to do all the things you said you’d do. There’s no implied consistency from one todo list to another.
A checklist is used repeatedly, and it’s about completing a task (or set of tasks) to a certain standard. If you’re following a checklist, you’re aiming for consistency.
reply