Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

797

We need a new movement in web development. We need to make it so that it will be absolutely frowned upon to have a website that doesn't work without JavaScript enabled unless it is absolutely necessary. This MUST be a requirement for the future development of websites on the Internet. If there should be any truth to the hype about a "Web 3.0", then this is one of the most important matters besides more decentralization.

> We need a new movement in web development. We need to make it so that it will be absolutely frowned upon to have a website that doesn't work without JavaScript enabled unless it is absolutely necessary. This MUST be a requirement for the future development of websites on the Internet. If there should be any truth to the hype about a "Web 3.0", then this is one of the most important matters besides more decentralization.

(post is archived)

[–] • 7 pts

So you want to do complete round trips to the server every time the page needs to update something on it without using JS? We already had that in the early days of the web and it sucked. Though I absolutely hate the use of bloated and mostly unnecessary JS frameworks, we can't just cut off all use of client-side scripting. Without client-side JS, most of the stuff out on the web today would not be possible, including Poal.

Imagine having to make a complete round trip to the server and have the page reload every time you upvote/downvote or post a comment. Without using the incredibly hokey techniques of named anchors to jump to a specific spot on the page where you were last at, each round trip would put you back at the top of the page. That would suck for reading comments.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but JS has its place on the web. Until we develop a brand new content and application delivery system, as in completely reimagining what a browser is and does, we will have to deal with the piecemealed technologies that it evolved with over 25+ years. Rather than fix the web, why not start a movement for building a new and better technology that doesn't rely on these flawed technologies?

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts
[–] • 1 pt

Precisely. Say good bye to Google spreadsheets and all that. Honestly, if implemented properly, users don't even notice it. Google spreadsheets, docs, o365 sheize is quite impressive at a basic utilitarian perspective. In the degrees that they suck isn't because of the js frontend or whatever back end they are using, they suck because of the choices those companies make around the ecosystem they want for their clients.

[–] • 1 pt

GWT was and still is here, but, hey, cannot use it since it is not the latest fad language

golang is so stupid it is painful, let's just change the syntax enough to be incompatible with anything else

let's just solve some cases with a solution and declare victory

yes, victory, we GOOGLE managed to cage the idiot developer, YEAH, we ar emaster of the universe

[–] • 7 pts

I hire these people. They love stuffing their resume with every fucking framework they can find. I know I'm dearly loved during code reviews when I see literally dozens of frameworks pulled into their projects. I make them justify every framework they attempt to use. 99% of the time, it's resume padding. I usually hear "umm... welll... it has this cool diddley do it can do." So you need an entire framework loaded in order to do this? "Uh.. yes?". What value does this offer? So now I'm trying to get them to admit resume stuffing. I seldom get an answer worth repeating. The best one was when a developer tried to load a framework in dynamically so I wouldn't notice it. I wanted to fire him on the spot.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Well sure, that is a valid point.

But, if I EVER had a developer apply for the same job without actually using a framework to handle, for example, security and authentication they wouldn't make it to the interview. Any developer that doesn't understand when to offload the roll your own to the ecosystem simply won't get in the door here.

Most of these kinds of jobs are not tooling jobs and frameworks are EXACTLY the correct tool for the job.

I have NEVER had a user open up a rails or django app and complain that we use rails or django. All that nonsense about performance is bullshit.

[–] • 2 pts

Everything in that article about the use of technology is wrong.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts (edited )

Yeah... sadly no.

I hate the absurd amount of bloat on modern web apps as much as the next guy, but there's no turning back. No one is going to use your nineties style web site.

So-called web developers have no say in this. Tell your company you'll build a server generated HTML only site and see how that goes.

[–] • 0 pt

Nobody that says they want that even wants that. And those that do can easily just use static site generators like Hugo and get a site with as little bloat as they like.

[–] • 2 pts

Rolling back to the 90's doesn't seem like a clever idea to me.

[–] • 0 pt

he thinks (((javascript))) is good

SAD!

[–] • 2 pts

I am a VP of Tech. Stuff needs to be built fast and cheap or else it won't get built at all. Platforms and Javascript are HUGE accelerators for this.

The author is one of those programmer purists who would rather chose "perfect" over "good enough" and thus nothing will EVER get deployed on time or within budget. This is why business runs the way it does, and "tech for tech's sake" doesn't work.

TLDR, the author has no idea how the world actually works

[–] • 1 pt

This!

People can complain all they want about "bloat" but the bottom line is that using frameworks you can get a better product build faster, with less experienced resources being required.

If you want a more efficient product without any frameworks, and the project has the budget to do it, then by all means spend the time to do things without a framework.

[–] • 1 pt

Yup. Everything sucks because customers don't want to pay for it.

[–] • 0 pt

For most websites competent CSS and minimal DHTML/AJAX are not just good enough but better than "reactive" websites. We don't need 3rd party fonts that require an entire framework to be loaded each time.

[–] • 0 pt

I agree with this. There is certainly a good middle ground between "HTML only" and "every crap widget and unnecessary feature under the sun".

[–] • 2 pts

As a vaguely related point, did you notice just how fast that web page loaded?

I'm so tired of shit that doesn't work instantly on a modern computer. Especially noticeable when you have to work on someone's trash PC and you have to wait for it to do anything.

Speed is so much nicer as an interface basic requirement, than something that looks pretty but is detectably slower.

[–] • 1 pt

(((javascript)))

[–] • 1 pt

I hate "reactive" websites. Learn CSS, newbz.