Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

Post by qznc » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:52 AM UTC

aylmao wrote: post #265

A big point of contention in the comments here lies around the concept of what a website should be. A school of thought in web development believes the web to be the next frontier in application development. For them it makes sense that websites like this feel and act like apps, both as an end-user (animations, transitions without full-page reloading, rich dynamic content, etc) and as a developer (client-side state m…

Post by Nextgrid » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:15 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #279

andirk wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90's versions, like mbasic, of almost every website is better. More content, less noise. Mbasic could still use a flaming tag though

> 90's versions, like mbasic, of almost every website is better. I mostly disagree and assume this is slightly hyperbolic, but I take your point. The web used to be documents, even for things that needed to be apps (like email). Now, the web is apps, even for things that should be documents. Beyond that, the web was not the capitalist/SEO/marketer battleground that it is today, where many sites have so many costs beh…

Post by marcthe12 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:44 PM UTC

ptx wrote: post #464

aylmao wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's possible to both think that websites and web applications are worthy uses of the web, but also that many web applications would have been best engineered using 'classical' techniques from early websites. I agree with this. > There's a strong argument to be made in Facebook's case, since the core value proposition of Facebook hasn't changed much since it's inception, and it began its life as a server-side rende…

> You can then switch back and forth between an online marketplace and a streaming service without losing the state of your chat window. On the other hand, if you built these things with lighter-weight techniques, these separate parts of the application could be opened in separate browser tabs or windows (without your computer grinding to a halt from loading multiple instances of a gigantic SPA.)

Post by dbbk » Sat, May 09, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #394

aeyes wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot more features? Facebook of 12 years ago didn't have groups, marketplace, dating, live videos, stories, ...

99% of that could have been implemented fine using the same technology. Live videos etc. are a scourge on the culture and I wouldn't miss them.

Post by ulisesrmzroche » Sat, May 09, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #439

ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s karma mining. It’s the same people who think frameworks are dumb and that JS is a terrible language and that codes of conduct are controversial and that you can build FB in a weekend with, at most, ten engineers I really have no clue what they do for a living Anyone who was working in the jQuery days knows exactly why the whole industry moved toward SPAs. It’s disingenuous to say it was just a millennial whim an…

>I really have no clue what they do for a living Writing code instead of playing with legos?