sussmannbaka

So after years of being gleefully told that AI will replace all jobs an omniscient state of the art model, with heavy assistance, takes more than two weeks and thousands of dollars in tokens to do what child me did in a few days? Huh.

They don't! Layout grids are less about the rows and columns and more about the lines separating them (which is why those get a lot of attention in CSS grid). Take a look at how layout grids are used in design and you will quickly find examples that are extremely inconvenient to realize with HTML tables. I'm sure it can be done and I'm sure some poor email marketing dev had to, but the result would be entirely static and not able to reflow.

I think CSS grid is too powerful to be represented in markup. I rotated the idea in my head for a bit but the most I could come up was elements that covered a small subset of CSS grid and which completely lost the entire appeal of being able to handle tracks dynamically.

Yes and no. <table> layouts were a hack that solved a real problem but came with massive downsides. People didn’t tell you to not use <table> to lay out content because grids are bad (they are quite handy! take a look at Grid Systems by Josef Müller-Brockmann) but because <table> both posed technical and accessibility problems. A layout grid is not a table (or a <table >). A table (with and without <>) comes with attached semantics, hierarchy, reading direction etc. and is extremely rigid, which makes it a bad fit for differing screen sizes.

It’s true that this was a blind spot for a long time and that it was frustrating to not be able to efficiently lay out content in 2D when <table> was just there. But it was the wrong choice then as it is now and it has been baseline available for 8 years now. I hope it won’t take another 8 years until the comparison stops :o)

The history lesson is appreciated but how does this relate to the current state of the stock file explorer that ships with the OS? I’m using my phone now and not ten years ago.

edit: oh, I think I get it. My original post wasn't intended to be read "iOS invented the file explorer, has Android also a file explorer app" (which would be silly, of course) but "when Files app released, the AOSP file explorer that commonly ships as the default was lacking, has this improved (caught up to Files app)"

While I bet there’s some technicality I’ll get gotcha’d on, iOS apps do the exact same nowadays.

Ghost Commander was better but I think I still prefer the iOS Files app.

I used the AOSP app I think? I’d usually agree with you but in this case I really wanted some more bloat because that one was dire :)

Am I supposed to be mad about them not supporting a feature during a time when I didn’t use iOS or is this somehow supposed to impact my current day use of Files app?

I don’t have one of those! I do have an SMB share mounted that I’m currently playing music from, though, and it’s working perfectly fine.

That’s entirely up to the app developer. Of course apps can see files if they’re developed to do that.

Certainly wasn’t ahead with the stock file manager that came with my last Android phone.

Im not sure if Android has caught up but the iOS file explorer app is excellent.

I can only navigate to a video by long-pressing, copying the URL and pasting it into the URL bar, otherwise I get a meaningless "something went wrong" type error message. Mobile Safari, no content blockers, not logged into a Google account. After almost two decades of making the website worse they finally succeeded in breaking "clicking a video". I wonder what the hotshots at Alphabet manage to break next :o)

Why, Windows itself ships with multiple Windows desktops these days.