tex: extend frontend section
This commit is contained in:
parent
8795020ef2
commit
cc511c602c
@ -420,10 +420,11 @@ empirically allows for a rather quick UI prototyping. Tailwind was chosen
|
||||
partially also because it \emph{looked} nice, had a reasonably detailed
|
||||
documentation and offered built-in support for dark/light mode. The templates
|
||||
containing the CSS classes need to be parsed by Tailwind in order to construct
|
||||
its final stylesheet. Upstream provides the original CLI tool for that action
|
||||
called \texttt{tailwindcss}. Overall, simple and accessible layouts had
|
||||
preference over convoluted ones and data-backed effort was made to create
|
||||
contrasting pages.
|
||||
the final stylesheet. Upstream provides the original CLI tool called
|
||||
\texttt{tailwindcss},which can be used exactly for that action. Overall, simple
|
||||
and accessible layouts were preferred, a single page was rather split into
|
||||
multiple when becoming convoluted, and data-backed efforts were made to create
|
||||
reasonably contrasting pages.
|
||||
|
||||
\n{3}{Frontend experiments}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -432,7 +433,7 @@ project, but has ultimately scrapped the functionality in favour of the
|
||||
entirely server-side rendered one. It is possible that it would get revisited
|
||||
if the client-side dynamic functionality was necessary and performance
|
||||
mattered. Even from the short experiments it was obvious how much faster
|
||||
WebAssembly was compared to JavaScript.
|
||||
WebAssembly was when compared to JavaScript.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\newpage
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user