I'm reminded of back in 1997 (maybe 98, anyway long time ago), I had been on a JavaScript course with a British guy, and went over to his house. He showed me the little cv site he'd been working on, it had quite a nice design, much better than I would ever do if asked to design something. I looked at the code - it was all tables, so I decided to show him CSS at the end of which he thunderously proclaimed "That's what's wrong with this industry, there's always something new to learn!"
I think he's doing something with Sitecore now, make of that what you will.
The funny thing is, we've just been finding more and more complicated ways to make table-based layouts ever since, but they're better because they are CSS based? I dunno, I don't have to squint hard at CSS-Grid to see old table layouts peeking back at me.
With HTML Tables, it's easy to switch on the grid (border=1) and see what's really going on. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but WYSIWYG sure the hell made life easier. Unless you are a dedicated UI specialist, you'll probably spend way too much time dinkering with the web UI because it's not WYSIWYG. It's like trying to park an 18-wheeler truck in a normal lot: you can't just "go there"; you have to plan it all out in 7 steps and hope it all works. Bicycle science is now rocket science. I'd like scientific proof "it must be this way" to get whatever wonderful benefit non-WYSIWYG has. Device size handling? Make 2 UI's: fat and skinny; that's easier than parking the 18-wheeler.
> With HTML Tables, it's easy to switch on the grid (border=1) and see what's really going on.
With CSS it's actually easy to display the grid `\*{border=1;}`. With tables, you have a lot of them, and must go into each line of your page adding that clause.
Not long ago I had to write some JS (had to, not wanted to) to do something on a site, and got something working based on what I knew, only to be derided by a "real JS developer" that my code was "deprecated", "not following best practices", "not modern", etc.
He gave me his version which was around 10x more code and only worked in a subset of the latest browsers, while mine not only did but would probably work in everything since maybe IE5 or so...
Maybe that's considered a bug, but I don't want any of this trend-chasing. I write code to get things done. My users don't care, and they want to get things done too.
I think he probably doesn't know JavaScript at that point. I remember I got invited to an interview one time and they were impressed by my code for their coding assignment partially because it could print out in less than a page (no minification), and they referred to another applicant whose code had taken 6 pages. And I was just like - how could it take that much code?
if someone ended up with 10X the code using 'modern' JS and it did not work cross-browser while yours worked cross-browser including IE6 and up, then I strongly suspect I would prefer yours.
I think the should be improved is implicit in the first step, does can be improved imply a suggestion - if not the third step is a suggestion, and it's that third step I'm always seeing problems in, not to mention the third step in a scenario of too much too learn runs into the XKCD standards problem https://xkcd.com/927/
I think he's doing something with Sitecore now, make of that what you will.