I don't understand this pattern, but I'm open-minded so maybe someone can explain it to me: With shadcn, I "own" the code for the components (rather than importing them from a library at compile- or run-time). This, I gather, offers the benefit of modifying and customizing the code as I see fit, and not relying on a library going forward. But how do I update the component with bug fixes and new features? Does it overwrite my local, customized component? The reason I use a component library is because I want to outsource most of the feature support and bug fixes, but this seems to remove that benefit in favor of... putting the code in my repo? I don't get it.
That's a good point. The way I see it, is that you have to handle any bugs or problems with the components, unless you want to update and download the latest updated component (which would override your current one). You would then have to worry about things breaking, or re-applying any changes you made directly to the component. Even with a normal ui component library you have to update the dependency in the package.json every now and then, and deal with breaking changes. I don't think it's the future though. People like the convenience of a library and having all the components easily in one place. Then occasionally updating the package for new updates, bug fixes. Having to download each component is an extra step and not for everyone.
@@ProgramWithErik well, partially true... with PrimeVue, for example, the code of the components is in the npm library but the style (which is called preset) is in our project source code. if I need to update a component, I just update it's code (which is not in my hands). Of course it could lead to some stuff to be fixed due to the reason that maybe some components apis has been modified... however a way less stuff to be fixed compared to the library u presented.
I don't understand this pattern, but I'm open-minded so maybe someone can explain it to me: With shadcn, I "own" the code for the components (rather than importing them from a library at compile- or run-time). This, I gather, offers the benefit of modifying and customizing the code as I see fit, and not relying on a library going forward. But how do I update the component with bug fixes and new features? Does it overwrite my local, customized component? The reason I use a component library is because I want to outsource most of the feature support and bug fixes, but this seems to remove that benefit in favor of... putting the code in my repo? I don't get it.
That's a good point. The way I see it, is that you have to handle any bugs or problems with the components, unless you want to update and download the latest updated component (which would override your current one). You would then have to worry about things breaking, or re-applying any changes you made directly to the component. Even with a normal ui component library you have to update the dependency in the package.json every now and then, and deal with breaking changes.
I don't think it's the future though. People like the convenience of a library and having all the components easily in one place. Then occasionally updating the package for new updates, bug fixes. Having to download each component is an extra step and not for everyone.
@@ProgramWithErik well, partially true... with PrimeVue, for example, the code of the components is in the npm library but the style (which is called preset) is in our project source code. if I need to update a component, I just update it's code (which is not in my hands). Of course it could lead to some stuff to be fixed due to the reason that maybe some components apis has been modified... however a way less stuff to be fixed compared to the library u presented.
Do you think guys if i use it with vuetify is it ok?
Pretty cool, thank you, will use
I didn't know that shadcn ui has a nuxt option, trying it right now
Let me know how it is!
Ark ui ❤❤❤
The components look nice but they use tailwind. I prefer a UI kit that uses SASS
It good and lightweight ,