401–410 of 467 posts
Why can't all these frameworks just be cached? If a cross site request to cdn.com/react-v1.0.js is cached under cdn.com, at most one download will trigger. That seems to solve the problem, but maybe I'm missing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How am I not engaging with your point? In response to a comment pointing out how we need to re-think web application development, you said: "The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment." ...and then talked a bit about how it's open (yeah, ok, sure), and then you said it's not really a good application development environment (obviously). I'm saying, your entire premise is wrong: it isn't an appl…
I'm in the middle of reading through The Unix-Haters Handbook and I must say that the arguments against web-as-application-platform (and the attempts to defend it) and are eerily similar to what this book reports about arguments against Unix that were circulated in the 80s and early 90s. Sadly, the fact Unix managed to a) win, and b) fuck up the computing world so badly that people don't even realize how much we've l…
The recent cross-communication between JavaScript, Elm, and Clojure has been incredibly fruitful but hasn't been noticed by the bitter die-hards. And really, almost all of it could've happened literally 15 years ago with Lisp if the Lisp community hadn't been dismissive, arrogant douchebags that considered JavaScript a worthless toy language.
What's truly sad is that some people would rather be abstractly right while producing nothing of value than work with the dominant paradigm and introduce useful concepts to it.
Bundlers like Webpack already import JS in a modular structure. I'm wondering if we could do some profiling into popular npm module combinations (I know many people using React + Lodash + Redux Router, etc), bundle them up, and have Webpack load in those combos from a CDN via ?
Now this would probably require some work on webpack's end (the __webpack_require__(n) would have to be some sort of consistent hash), but at least everyone who blindly require('lodash') will see an improvement?
Wondering if an idea like this would work: Bundlers like Webpack already import JS in a modular structure. I'm wondering if we could do some profiling into popular npm module combinations (I know many people using React + Lodash + Redux Router, etc), bundle them up, and have Webpack load in those combos from a CDN via ? Now this would probably require some work on webpack's end (the __webpack_require__(n) would have…
Web apps are another deal though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get the point of those settings. You seem to prefer white-on-black text, but the "Only with High Contrast themes" override means that it will almost never apply. I tried setting this in my Firefox and visited a bunch of sites. None of them showed me white text on black background, because almost every site sets both background and foreground color styles, which override the preference setting. In fact the onl…
> I don't get the point of those settings. You seem to prefer white-on-black text, but the "Only with High Contrast themes" override means that it will almost never apply. The idea of defaults is to be default. I don't mind sites specifying the use of particular colours, and it's useful e.g. for syntax highlighting, for text above background images, for transparent images assuming a particular background colour (e.g.…
Seems like a big waste of time to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That doesn't mean we can't change the paradigm, but to do that, we have to stop defending the current model. Here's the crux of our disagreement. You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I (despite your presumptuous implication that I'm a millenial), have been around long enough to know that wil…
"You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I...have been around long enough to know that will never happen." "That's not to say that the web might not some be supplanted by something better..." Whomever wrote the first paragraph of your comment should get in touch with the person who wrote the seco…
Declaring the web "not even a development environment" is just absolutist rhetoric that can in no way further the conversation. If you define "development environment" as a traditional GUI toolkit then your're just creating a tautology to satisfy your own outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are so right. The web as an application delivery platform sucks. And we are no even capable of producing UIs with the same level of polishment I did in visual basic 2.0 in 1996 or so. Alan Kay has expressed the same filling. PS to downvoters if you have not used a proper interface designer such a QT or Delphi, then you don't know what we mean. Please watch some videos to decide if the state of the art (angular an…
The downvotes are because he is not engaging with my point. Never did I say the web is a proper application development environment. My point was that you can't create a proper application development environment that is both an open and defacto standard the way the web is.
In addition to the countless examples posted in this thread, I would argue that if it's nearly impossible to create your own implementation of a platform or standard from scratch, then it's not really open in a practical sense. Who cares if the specs are available if it takes dozens or hundreds of man years to deliver a passable implementation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those aren't cross-platform the way the web is cross-platform, they all depend primarily on one vendor's implementation. None of those ever had any hope of crossing the chasm to ubiquity, they only gained as much traction as their vendor had market clout on a limited set of platforms for a limited time period.
"Those aren't cross-platform the way the web is cross-platform, they all depend primarily on one vendor's implementation" And web browsers are different how, exactly? (Other than the fact that "the web" is a mish-mash of hundreds of different "standards" with varying levels of mutual compatibility and standardization, of course.)
> The top ten sites are significantly lighter than the rest (worth noting if you want to be a top website). Wow. That's nice to see actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the checksum was the same and you accepted the cache hit if the checksum agrees and get your own copy if it doesn't? Maybe the application should get to declare a canonical URL for the js file instead of the browser? So something like https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.2/jquery.m... sha-256="31be012d5df7152ae6495decff603040b3cfb949f1d5cf0bf5498e9fc117d546"> Would this cause more problems than i…
> I'm concerned about people like me who use noscript selectively. How easy is it to create a malicious file that matches the checksum of a known file? SHA-256? Very, very, very, very hard. I don't believe there are any known attacks for collisions for SHA-256.