Live data from Hacker News

UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

unsuckjs.com

71–80 of 194 posts

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#71
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare. It’s still used in Healthcare. Unfortunately.

Oh I've seen IE8 in healthcare.

Sadly, that is a commentary on the quality and efficiency of the US healthcare system.

Before I get an onslaught of downvotes: my wife is a Nurse Practitioner and her and literally every provider she knows that I have met agrees that our healthcare system is backwards, inefficient, and anything but caring for or about peoples health.

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#72

I can do the same thing via NextJS and output pure HTML and CSS without any JS at all. Or with server components, output only the minimal JS needed. Not sure why everyone wants to write a programming language inside HTML like lit does.

A fresh install of NextJS is roughly 150MB. You realise that's mostly code that all needs to work right?

Next doesn't ship 150MB of JavaScript to browsers...

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#73
It would be handy to see the license.

It's becoming increasingly more dangerous to use anything in the GPL family for anything but the narrowest of use cases. It's to the point that, even now, if it's GPL I refuse to incorporate it, even in personal projects. And I'm not against open source... Everything I write is MIT.

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#75
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all on the backend so it doesn't really matter to me as long as no JS is sent on the frontend. For the benefits NextJS gives me, like TypeScript, I'm fine with that.

In that case why not just SSR lit on the backend and send that? It sounds like an unfair criticism otherwise

It's easy to add interactivity to a NextJS site when you need it.

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#76

Awesome list! I love that the cognitive overhead for web apps now is so great many people are "returning to monke" and coding in simple HTML/CSS/JS haha. Question: Shouldn't the items be in the row so I can see all of them at once? Why are the items in the columns? I'll open a issue (:

None of these are simple HTML/CSS/JS.

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#77

There should be another row that which of these can be included as a standalone javascript lib in html instead of requiring NPM.

Which means any content would be rendered after page load, worsening performance compared to frameworks like Next.

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#78

Awesome list! I love that the cognitive overhead for web apps now is so great many people are "returning to monke" and coding in simple HTML/CSS/JS haha. Question: Shouldn't the items be in the row so I can see all of them at once? Why are the items in the columns? I'll open a issue (:

None of these are simple HTML/CSS/JS.

It's part of the new modern WebDev semantical lexicon:

!React = HTML/CSS/JS

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: UnsuckJS: Progressively enhance HTML with lightweight JavaScript libraries

#80

It would be handy to see the license. It's becoming increasingly more dangerous to use anything in the GPL family for anything but the narrowest of use cases. It's to the point that, even now, if it's GPL I refuse to incorporate it, even in personal projects. And I'm not against open source... Everything I write is MIT.

What changed to make GPL more "dangerous" - and to whom?

I was under the impression that nearly every Linux distro uses GPL code in the kernel and/or userland.

Post reply on HN