I've had a good experience with Woodpecker CI. I've heard that installation and integration with ForgeJo isn't easy, but I deploy everything to my homelab using Dokku, where I push a Dockerfile, mount a volume (on setup), and it's good to go.
I assume this isn't optimal for a business setup, but for personal projects, I don't miss GitHub Actions at all.
.env files are a different use case than config files.
You can use them together. Config files provide configuration to the application. The config file can read environment variables, so you can deploy the same code across different environments, e.g., your local computer, staging, and production.
Then, each environment will provide system-related configuration, e.g., `DATABASE_URL`.
With this setup, the same code will work on each environment.
Now, .env files should live only on your local machine; on any other environment, they should be set differently, not in files.
The .env file is a convenience, but not the only option for environment variables, nowdays you can use 1Password too.
One of the greatest things of the Vue community is that they are not dogmatic about a technology choice. They welcome everyone, and proof of that is that they are building tooling that benefit everyone not only their community.
So, we can switch over to Vue whenever we want. I personally prefer React and I'm super grateful of Vite and their ecosystem.
> But this article is not about the whole UI/UX stack.
And this
> It focuses on benefits on what semantic CSS offers. aka "naming things" vs "not naming things".
That's the problem, you are focusing on giving semantic names to classes while giving an inferior UX on your example. If the inferior UX saves me a few KBs on size and a few milliseconds in load time, I'd still prefer good UX.
A fair comparison should be good UX with semantic CSS.
It's an unfair comparison because Tailwind as a library is composed of tooling, documentation, design patterns, good practices and obviously CSS. The same is for other libraries, e.g., Bootstrap.
I agree that using Tailwind--without extra effort--will end up with "meaningless" (not really) classes in the HTML.
But semantics should be prioritized in HTML rather than CSS or class names. What's the benefit of having semantic classes when your HTML is inaccessible and unsemantic? e.g., using `a` instead of `button`, `img` with unsemantic alternative text.
The article focus on the semantics of CSS classes present in the HTML rendered in the browser, but the example the author presents doesn't have a good semantic HTML.
The template the author is comparing against (https://spotlight.tailwindui.com/) has better HTML structure, descriptive text and aria labels on buttons, icons and images. This is what the semantic web is about.
You could argue that the author's template loads faster (not for that much honestly) but the UX won't be better.
Tailwind or Bootstrap's (just to provide an additional example) documentation presents accessible and well styled patterns that end users will benefit from.
People complain about the bloat of these frameworks, but they don't make a fair comparison when checking examples for accessibility, responsiveness (mobile experience) and other features that make a great UX and help with SEO (because in the end accessibility is SEO).
I assume this isn't optimal for a business setup, but for personal projects, I don't miss GitHub Actions at all.