Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files • Hacker News Board

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#111

Post by scarface74 » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

I’m by no stretch of the imagination a modern web developer. I know plain JS well, HTML and enough CSS/Bootstrap to throw together an internal website.

Even then most of my experience is with server side rendering.

However, for any large project, I would much rather be forced into using a modern framework than not. Any web app that is large enough is going to have some type of bespoke framework that was created by the “architect” who has been there forever.

It’s just like dealing with a bespoke ORM, logging, or authentication/authorization framework.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#112

Post by markmark » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:49 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #82

RockIslandLine wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you ever build that kind of application using web technologies?

Simple: every machine has already installed the gateway to your program: a web browser. No need to deal with issues like antivirus going bonkers, weird MSVCRT versions installed leading to support requests, you save a ton of money when you need to support OS X or god forbid Linux, and last but not least, an SaaS business model has recurring revenues while it doesn't have to deal with rampant piracy at the same time.

There's a weird subset of HN that think people should still be building desktop apps. It's like they haven't paid any attention to the software market for the last 10 years.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#113

Post by airstrike » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:51 AM UTC

firecall wrote: post #70

chmod775 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Gmail showed us that web 'apps' are useful. Gmail is terrible. It's slow and most people prefer the static html version.

You've clearly not had to work in a corporate environment on an old PC with a locked down copy of Outlook... Gawd.. now that's terrible. But yeah... I don't agree Gmail is terrible, but I'd like it to be better. Ive been on a few months after it launched, and got a service that's been reliable and stable for that long, I have to give it a lot of credit!

Outlook 2010 is fantastic

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#114

Post by superkuh » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

x3haloed wrote: post #23

> The Dark Age - Somewhere on this path to render pages on the fly (SSR) and render pages on the client (SPA) we forgot about the performance of our webpages. We were trying to build apps. But the web is about presenting content first and foremost! Pfff - That's completely wrong. SPAs are all about performance. If you want to built a highly-interactive site, it makes sense to do the computing where it's consumed -- i…

> Says who?

Everyone who isn't only on the web to try to make money. That's who. But all you for-profit types are runining it. As the browser becomes more powerful it is more important to secure it. As security becomes more important features are removed and the browser begins telling the user what they can and cannot do. And on the webmaster side it becomes infeasible for browsers to display your site or search engines to index it unless you depend upon the leased whim of third parties to get your centralized authority signed SSL cert.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#115

Post by zitterbewegung » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:58 AM UTC

paranoidrobot wrote: post #101

karatestomp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm about 99% sure the store on the PS3 was webtech. That beast of a machine could barely run its own store. They lost a lot of money from me as a result of the store being super-slow, input laggy, and crashy (OOM I assume), and I can't be the only one. PS4 feels like they've taken webtech all over the OS interface. Its store's snappier than the 3 but the rest of the interface performs way worse. Usable, but far less…

All sorts of devices with some kind of UI are using a browser in some kind of kiosk/headless mode. STBs, Smart TVs, IFE systems are or were web based.

To be honest as time goes on the Smart piece of your device starts to get slower and slower.

One of the main drivers for getting a amazon fire stick is that it is much more responsive than the Smart TV itself.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#116

Post by overcast » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:01 AM UTC

Guest0918231 wrote: post #50

csomar wrote: post #27

We are not going back full circle. We are facing new challenges and realizing how complex web development is. 1- There is no simple CSS start point; unless you don't want to be responsive, support mobile/tablets, add a print stylesheet. Then you have thousands of line. Time to add a pre-processor like Sass because CSS was not designed for such complex use cases. 2- There is no simple HTML either. Are you going to mem…

Well, I completely disagree. Compared to developing sites 15-20 years ago, I think it's a walk in the park now. I feel like I can achieve far more with less code, the tools are more powerful, the code is easier to read, and there is much more consistency across browsers. Did you want to make a box with rounded corners? We can do that now... It's intuitive and easy to understand. Try that 20 years ago. You're designin…

The basics are easier yes, but the projects have become more complex. So yes, we can easily round corners instead of silly image slices, but like anything, making things easier just bumps up the expectations.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#117

Post by popup21 » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

panphora wrote: post #55

popup21 wrote: post #8

Wouldn't do it any other way. I dipped out of web dev in 2015 to run an ecommerce project. I stopped tracking all the latest js framework news. I settled on a barebones CSS rule set. I stopped choosing SPAs as the starting point for mvp ideas. I shelved Wordpress and moved some content sites over to Netlify and just recently started using a nifty desktop ssr cms instead of Hugo, Gatsby, etc. I was regressing to the e…

I made a web app framework [0] for people like you (and me). It lets you use static HTML to build a web app. Data attributes store data in the page and add dynamic features (like CRUD functionality and drag and drop sorting) very easily. Plus, the whole thing is server rendered with Handlebars, so the front-end JS part isn't even required for 95% of visitors (it's only necessary if you're an admin who can edit the cu…

Interesting. How are you deploying the server side environment?

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#118

Post by manigandham » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

WDCDev wrote: post #87

x3haloed wrote: post #23

> The Dark Age - Somewhere on this path to render pages on the fly (SSR) and render pages on the client (SPA) we forgot about the performance of our webpages. We were trying to build apps. But the web is about presenting content first and foremost! Pfff - That's completely wrong. SPAs are all about performance. If you want to built a highly-interactive site, it makes sense to do the computing where it's consumed -- i…

> Use the right technology for what you're trying to build. Yep .. so if you want a rich responsive user experience, DON'T use any web technologies. GMail (AND Gsuite) is a perfect example of how a relatively simple concept like email can be turned into a slow, unresponsive piece of garbage.

Extreme statements aren't useful.

GMail is a poorly built app, that's all. There are plenty of great examples. Both Outlook and Fastmail have fast and feature-rich email clients. Gmail was good back in the day and got carried away by project managers and feature creep.

Meanwhile Google Docs continues to be a pinnacle of what you can achieve on the web.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#119

Post by sgustard » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:14 AM UTC

satyrnein wrote: post #103

x3haloed wrote: post #23

> The Dark Age - Somewhere on this path to render pages on the fly (SSR) and render pages on the client (SPA) we forgot about the performance of our webpages. We were trying to build apps. But the web is about presenting content first and foremost! Pfff - That's completely wrong. SPAs are all about performance. If you want to built a highly-interactive site, it makes sense to do the computing where it's consumed -- i…

Gmail is literally a document browser. I think Google Maps might be a better example.

Amen. I feel like no one remembers the days of Mapquest where you'd click "next tile" and then watch the page reload just to scroll a few miles north, then repeat.

Re: Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

#120

Post by eyegor » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

waheoo wrote: post #86

eyegor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its performance is so horrible that even on a high spec machine with fast internet, you have plenty of time to click the "switch to plain ol html" button. Which is actually more in line with the performance I'd expect from a glorified file drawer.

Loads instantly for me on FF desktop and laptop running linux. But i have experienced what youre talking about. You either have graphics hardware support disabled or youre laptop CPU is not running in perfoance mode and has its govenor set to something like balanced or power saving mode.

I've never found a way around it. Hardware acceleration on/off, windows, linux, phone, workstation, ff, chrome/ium, it always loads like crap. And my daily drivers are a dual xeon workstation or an overclocked zen3 machine, pretty far from laptop constraints. Gmail just has no interest in being performant, I guess.

I don't have this issue with other sites, it's just Gmail being Gmail.