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

TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#11

Post by allover »

noway421 wrote: post #6
tdkl wrote: post #5

I'll just comment on the stanforddaily website how clean it looked and loaded fast even without any crap like AMP. Just compare it to the current site.

Pure HTML y'all. No megabytes of css, no bootstrap, no webpack with plethora of dependencies to load, parse and execute. We went the other route.

Why the drive-by attacks on good tools? This kind of stuff is tiring and just adds to the noise.

> No megabytes of css

Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site, apart from for ads, which is the main problem with modern 'content sites'.

> no bootstrap

Bootstrap can be tiny, and a big win in productivity/quality, so 'no Bootstrap' likely cost the devs in its lack of availabilty at the time. It looks far worse and is less usable on mobile particularly (but on desktop too) than it would be if built with Bootstrap.

> No webpack with plethora of dependencies to load, parse and execute.

Why is that even relevant? Who exactly is advocating for 'webpack with plethora of dependencies' for that kind of website?

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#14

Post by the_watcher »

allover wrote: post #11
noway421 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure HTML y'all. No megabytes of css, no bootstrap, no webpack with plethora of dependencies to load, parse and execute. We went the other route.

Why the drive-by attacks on good tools? This kind of stuff is tiring and just adds to the noise. > No megabytes of css Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site, apart from for ads, which is the main problem with modern 'content sites'. > no bootstrap Bootstrap can be tiny, and a big win in productivity/quality, so 'no Bootstrap' likely cost the devs in its lack of availabilty at the time. It looks far…

> Bootstrap can be tiny

Sure, but it oftentimes isn't

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#15

Post by allover »

the_watcher wrote: post #14
allover wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the drive-by attacks on good tools? This kind of stuff is tiring and just adds to the noise. > No megabytes of css Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site, apart from for ads, which is the main problem with modern 'content sites'. > no bootstrap Bootstrap can be tiny, and a big win in productivity/quality, so 'no Bootstrap' likely cost the devs in its lack of availabilty at the time. It looks far…

> Bootstrap can be tiny Sure, but it oftentimes isn't

So it can be misused? All good tools can.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#17

Post by GCA10 »

dannylandau wrote: post #13

So what ever came of Chris Holt?

He's a senior editor at Super Evil Megacorp, the mobile-games site, according to his LinkedIn profile.

To my astonishment, http://womenwhowanttosleepwithchrisholt.com/ is an unclaimed domain name. At least that's true as of 4:14 p.m. Pacific time.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#19

Post by Taek »

allover wrote: post #15
the_watcher wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bootstrap can be tiny Sure, but it oftentimes isn't

So it can be misused? All good tools can.

Meh. There are tools that can be misused on accident and there are tools that you have to go out of your way and have technical knowledge to misuse. And then there are tools where misuse is the default, and you have to have special or technical knowledge to use well.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#20

Post by [deleted] »

terminado wrote: post #7

Jesus christ. It's so hard to believe that's only from 2004. I feel like that era transpired 40 years ago. The period of time before smartphones feels like it happened in the 1970's to me. The difference between 2000 and 2015 is so absurdly radical it begs disbelief.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN