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

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#91

Post by tambourine_man »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #65
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…

> 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

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#92

Post by foepys »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #77
p4bl0 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point of view forgets the fact that loading 1MB of JS instead of 10KB of HTML is actually a bad thing. It consumes bandwidth and energy, and thus has an effect on the environment, for instance.

I think the pointless act of watching cat videos and pornography has a much more significant effect on the environment. Driving cars, too. By that reasoning, these things must be really evil.

Until you notice that just visiting Facebook keeps a 10-30% load on your CPU while doing nothing. Now imagine how many people are using Facebook.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#93

Post by wjd2030 »

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…

B/c they wanted to do it that way and you're nothing but a negative troll spewing what you think is right. Lets have someone critique all your work and criticize everything they disagree with.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#95

Post by blub »

wjd2030 wrote: post #93
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…

B/c they wanted to do it that way and you're nothing but a negative troll spewing what you think is right. Lets have someone critique all your work and criticize everything they disagree with.

The insanity of today's web happened because we have too few "negative trolls".

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#96

Post by briandear »

codedokode wrote: post #88
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…

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.

I think the disconnect is that people have conflated websites with web applications. I fully expect an application to use JS because essentially you're providing (or attempting to provide) desktop-analogous functionality in the browser.

However a "website" has the purpose of 'displaying information' -- essentially some form of text + images akin to a newspaper page. In those cases JavaScript is an enhancement but ought not be a requirement.

For a web application though, not using JavaScript is like a car pulled by donkeys. Sure you can sit in it and try to steer but it doesn't provide optimal functionality.

However on the other hand, anyone expecting a good web experience in 2016 without JavaScript is fighting a Quixotic battle.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#97

Post by Blahah »

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

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

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#98

Post by JasonSage »

codedokode wrote: post #88
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…

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 iteration.

You're making a conscious decision based on the trade-offs at hand and saying that every website should double down on server side rendering to cater to your intolerance of how modern web browsing works. That's just not feasible.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#99

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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.

Good example. After getting used to the 1998 feel, it's much more practical than the usual one.
Post reply on HN