171–180 of 187 posts
Awesome. Really need the ability to search by company name - so we can find out how a company is before joining (or while inside).
> so we can find out how a company is before joining You mean like glassdoor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but all those things make me happy. Having to wait for a web site to load a full megabyte of useless data for no reason doesn't make me happy.
This is a far stronger argument against JS-driven websites than the environmental argument. Would you ever make the argument: "this website would be so much easier to use with a little Javascript, but Javascript is bad for the environment, so it should remain without"? If not, the environment isn't actually a factor in the reasoning process. It's just a club to wield when it supports what you've already decided is th…
Now I agree that in the case we're discussing, the JS actually brings a negative difference as it doesn't enhance anything and makes the website unusable without JS and thus a lot less accessible. So here the environmental factor is secondary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm someone who builds a lot of SPAs for things that really don't need to be SPAs. The ability to host on gh-pages and to not implement a backend at all seals the deal for me. That said, I try to load a static version of the compiled result as part of the skeleton HTML. Even if it gets overwritten by the SPA afterwards, it makes things look faster.
Would you mind sharing any frameworks you use, specifically wrt ones that work well when hosting on gh-pages? Thanks.
When starting from react-create-app it's also super easy to deploy to gh-pages: npm run deploy
It's really beautiful to work with and getting better every week.
Heads up and/or warning: front page is littered with spam, swearing and some racist terms. Consider it NSFW (for now) if your workplace filters for those things.
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…
If your site looks like garbage when I turn the javascript off, fair enough. If your site breaks because it needs to do client side process, then that's on me, fair call.
But if your website can't even load text without javascript, then you're using a carpenters square as a hammer. Loading text is what html does. That's it's one and only job, and it's really fucking good at it. Way better at it than javascript is.
If your website cannot load text without javascript, you're a shitty developer, because you're rejecting the objectively correct tool and shoehorning a far more complex tool into it's place. That's how you get security vulnerabilities and high maintenance costs. It's the very definition of over engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a far stronger argument against JS-driven websites than the environmental argument. Would you ever make the argument: "this website would be so much easier to use with a little Javascript, but Javascript is bad for the environment, so it should remain without"? If not, the environment isn't actually a factor in the reasoning process. It's just a club to wield when it supports what you've already decided is th…
I disagree. The environmental argument is also solid one all other things being equal . It's not just a "club to wield when it supports what you've already decided is the correct answer". Even if JS only website were okay (which they're not) and as just good as plain HTML ones, the fact that the latter is better for the environment totally counts as an argument. And at least for me , trading a 10kB web page against a…
Suppose the environmental impacts of the HTML-only page and the JS-driven page were flipped, but the user experience remained exactly the same - the JS-driven page still takes longer to download, uses more memory, and doesn't work unless JS is enabled; but it's marginally better for the environment, by the same amount that the HTML-only page is better in the real world. Do you now think the JS-driven page is preferable?
If not, you don't get to use the environment to argue for the HTML-only page. It doesn't sway you, so you shouldn't use it to sway others.
I don't like the misuse of the word "firing" which has become incredibly prevalent. To fire someone means there was a performance issue. most of the things listed on that site are just lay offs, not actual "firings". It would be good to know which companies actually "fired", vs which ones "laid off". there's a big difference.
Heads up and/or warning: front page is littered with spam, swearing and some racist terms. Consider it NSFW (for now) if your workplace filters for those things.
Well, now at least we know the true colors of some of the HN audience. Sheesh.