I feel Plasmic tries to build its own way of web development, which isolates itself from others.
Nowadays people use Bootstrap, Material-UI these famous Interactive component libs to build their websites. Plasmic is not based on all of them. If a company only has few people know how to use Plasmic, how can he cooperate with others?
I think converting figma design to html and css is a good point. For the rest part, I can see Plasmic tries to use its own ways to create interact components, such as recording an action. But is this a really good idea for these developers?
I feel that Plasmic should become more popular and successful.
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback; we’re looking into ways to let you tap into existing component libraries more easily. We know it’s a hassle today to figure out how to register each component.
I tried to recommend Plasmic to some developers, it turns out they lack interest of it. I guess maybe this is because Plasmic is a tool which doesn’t have a close connection with other popular UI libs. In other words, Plasmic makes them leave their psychological comfort zone. They may think we are good with Bootstrap or others, why I need to use this? Registering UI or tapping existing component libraries will make some connections with developers’ daily work. I think it will lead to a better result than building your own UI widgets.
I would second this. It’s been a monumental effort to get some designers/developers to give Plasmic a try, even after enthusiastically endorsing it, and in many cases showing an demo. For the life of me, I don’t know why. I think the perceived switching cost and learning a new, somewhat obscure tool, is causing people to put off giving plasmic a try. My suggestion is through the will of the CS gods— push faster imports of component libraries, real-time collaboration, and waaay more video tutorials on popular applications people want to build. I think a lot of us want more people to use plasmic and we’re happy to help spread the word.
You guys can always read my mind.