CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP • Hacker News Board

throwaway2016a wrote: post #5

This is very interesting and I don't want to detract from that . However, pointing out that for a (large?) portion of us, CPP means "C Plus Plus" so I was confused for a few seconds.

Welcome to the world of "$lang-lang" queries. Go, Rust, please make room.

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#14

Post by mxuribe » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

I agree with the premise that the amp framework (or any such framework) should be separate from being forced to work with only a specific set of tools, etc. However, it seems to me that what the author is proposing is really just more/better adherence to html/web specs...no? Or perhaps, a few performance-related tweaks to existing html/web specs...I mean, if we all (that is web producers, website managers, content authors, etc.) simply produce sites that adhere more to already established web standards (a la html5, xhtml, etc.), AND have browser makers be more strict in their interpretations of the established html/web specs, then we'd be almost all the way there...no? I'm by no means stating that this is easy, just stating that the author might be re-inventing a wheel that simply could use some optimization.

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#15

Post by mxuribe » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:44 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #8

pjmlp wrote: post #3

Just use pure HTML/CSS and the web sites will fly by comparison.

HTML/CSS are slow. The true way is ".txt" Edit: I mean this as a sort of lazy way of making a reductio. I don't think .txt is better than HTML/CSS for pages (and I hope that's obvious). I also don't think having no JS is a good idea. I believe in progressive enhancement, and to a first approximation, I think that all websites have at least one feature that they could implement in JS that would be "a good thing".

I agree 90% with this; .txt files get most of the job done! ;-) The other 10% where i don't fully agree comprises of hyperlinks; i need me some clickable hyperlinks. :-)

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#16

Post by onion2k » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:47 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #3

Just use pure HTML/CSS and the web sites will fly by comparison.

For a single page load, sure. For subsequent page loads you're loading a lot more than necessary (a JS app can fetch just the content that's changed, and without a blank page in between), so a pure HTML and CSS solution is a great deal slower.

Plus, if you users have unreliable internet connections then a JS app can use a service worker to cache the entire app to work offline, and only load in new content when possible. An HTML page doesn't work at all in those circumstances.

Sometimes JS does actually make a site better. It's not always unnecessary bloat.

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#17

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

xd1936 wrote: post #4

This was first published last February, and the top comment was from a Googler who's involved with the AMP project: > Love this. Not sure by coincidence, but the AMP team has been playing around with the same thing under literally the same name. We should meet up some time and discuss details. Not sure it would be an alternative, but rather a complementary thing. I wonder what ever came of that.

[deleted]

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#18

Post by walterbell » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:55 PM UTC

mxuribe wrote: post #15

hyperpape wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTML/CSS are slow. The true way is ".txt" Edit: I mean this as a sort of lazy way of making a reductio. I don't think .txt is better than HTML/CSS for pages (and I hope that's obvious). I also don't think having no JS is a good idea. I believe in progressive enhancement, and to a first approximation, I think that all websites have at least one feature that they could implement in JS that would be "a good thing".

I agree 90% with this; .txt files get most of the job done! ;-) The other 10% where i don't fully agree comprises of hyperlinks; i need me some clickable hyperlinks. :-)

Browser option to make hyperlinks clickable when rendering text files? Or client-side browser rendering of text-based markdown.

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#19

Post by noir_lord » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

mxuribe wrote: post #14

I agree with the premise that the amp framework (or any such framework) should be separate from being forced to work with only a specific set of tools, etc. However, it seems to me that what the author is proposing is really just more/better adherence to html/web specs...no? Or perhaps, a few performance-related tweaks to existing html/web specs...I mean, if we all (that is web producers, website managers, content au…

> However, it seems to me that what the author is proposing is really just more/better adherence to html/web specs...no?

Pretty much but buzzwords/PR work, "CPP Compliant" vs "We build stuff properly (for a given value of properly)"

Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP

#20

Post by colanderman » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #16

pjmlp wrote: post #3

Just use pure HTML/CSS and the web sites will fly by comparison.

For a single page load, sure. For subsequent page loads you're loading a lot more than necessary (a JS app can fetch just the content that's changed, and without a blank page in between), so a pure HTML and CSS solution is a great deal slower. Plus, if you users have unreliable internet connections then a JS app can use a service worker to cache the entire app to work offline, and only load in new content when possib…

Client-side XSLT and HTTP caching address both those issues. Yes, JS is another way to solve those issues, but not the only one.