Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Whosfiring

whosfiring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 187 posts

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#101

Post by eeZah7Ux »

JasonSage wrote: post #98
codedokode wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pages load faster with JS disabled, show less advertisement and no popups. Browser processes take less memory. Social network tracking scripts (usually disguised as share buttons) do not work. Annoying fixed headers, footers and sidebar usually don't work without JS too. I got used to this comfortable way of browsing the web and seeing more sites that don't work without JS doesn't make me happy.

So you're in a memory-constrained environment, you can't be bothered to block social network tracking scripts by another means (some of those still load as pixels so you haven't gotten rid of them entirely), you don't like fixed headers, footers, or sidebars, and you're taking it all out on this site because the fastest way they could bang out their little idea did not include server-side rendering in the initial ite…

3 billion people are in a bandwith, memory and CPU-constrained environment. 99% of websites can be written with or a minimum of javascript or not at all without losing any meaningful functionality.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#102

Post by adim86 »

tambourine_man wrote: post #91
tokenizerrr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all…

That's not an equivalent analogy. Disabling JS displays nothing at all , while changing text and background color is a progressive enhancement. Content should still be accessible without JavaScript, even if, perhaps, in a less convenient way, i.e., every click reloads the entire page

But why? Who made the rule that websites should work without JS? Content being accessible without JS is best practice. I get it and it was very valuable a long time ago. It comes in handy sometimes today but for most of the internet accessing world, working without JS is not a requirement. I do not get why people ding products for not working when JS is not enabled.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#103

Post by ecma »

beagle3 wrote: post #76
romanovcode wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I totally agree about this site, it's stupid to disregard JS as a whole. Imagine websites like FB without JS - it would be horrible.

You don't have to imagine, you can try: https://mbasic.facebook.com/ - a lot of people prefer it to the standard monstrosity.

I use mbasic.facebook as my main was of interacting with Facebook. I acknowledge that my choice to disable JavaScript is unusual and will jump through some hoops because of that, but it's not excusable for a website to display /nothing/ pre-script like the OP does.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#107

Post by aplummer »

tambourine_man wrote: post #91
tokenizerrr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all…

That's not an equivalent analogy. Disabling JS displays nothing at all , while changing text and background color is a progressive enhancement. Content should still be accessible without JavaScript, even if, perhaps, in a less convenient way, i.e., every click reloads the entire page

I disagree with this assumption "Content should still be accessible without JavaScript" in 2016.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#108

Post by efaref »

Blahah wrote: post #97
tambourine_man wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an equivalent analogy. Disabling JS displays nothing at all , while changing text and background color is a progressive enhancement. Content should still be accessible without JavaScript, even if, perhaps, in a less convenient way, i.e., every click reloads the entire page

Why? Every browser has JS, and it's a core web technology.

I quite often use Lynx[1], which does not support JS.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#109

Post by retube »

codedokode wrote: post #41

Sorry, but I am going to comment on a technical implementation rather than the content of a site. The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. Probably it is because the developers were too busy learning trendy JS frameworks and do not know about HTML and server side page generation (in PHP this could be done m…

It doesn't even load at all in my corp environment. I am guessing the CDN or where ever the framework .js is hosted is blocked by our firewall.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#110

Post by inflagranti »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #69
mibbiting wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices. It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.

Perhaps we should be going back to writing websites in assembly.

This is such a bad example, as JS is actually more low level than a declarative language like HTML.
Post reply on HN