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

I'm betting on HTML

catskull.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 458 posts

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#201

Post by chromoblob »

kaba0 wrote: post #196
chromoblob wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they identical? A program may use more steps than memory.

A Turing machine can either go left or right on its tape (some versions have a stay step as well, doesn’t matter). If all your program does is step right forever, than it will use the maximum amount of memory, but only ever a finite amount, that is equal to the number of steps taken. So if you don’t have infinite time (you don’t have), and you have big enough memory for the particular use case so that you don’t get O…

The reason for undecidability of halting is that a program's state may grow without bound. If a program's memory usage is bounded, its halting can be determined. So the computer is not like a Turing machine since its programs don't use Turing machine's key feature - infinite tape.

Although the naive way of deciding halting requires exponential time in program's memory bound, AGIs will speed that up for many programs by using clever math.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#202

Post by wil421 »

klardotsh wrote: post #86
Gigachad wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general the issue with these built in components is that you can't theme them. And they stick out like a sore thumb when you get a windows 7 style component in the middle of a modern looking app. They also have basically no extensibility so when you inevitably need to do something half complex, you have to scrap it and start again with JS. So you may as well have just started with JS which just works, gives you fu…

Unfortunately this is a case where we'll have to agree to disagree. Half the time with Electron apps I wish I could disable CSS completely and just use my system theme because it sucks less than whatever the designer came up with for that app (the definition of "sucks less" falls into many axes that vary per application and context; no point in digressing far into that), so what you described would be a feature, not…

This is what really bugged my about “portable” Java apps way back. Java Spring was especially noticeable. It stuck out like a shore thumb compared to the regular system UIs.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#203

Post by tyingq »

wruza wrote: post #95
p-e-w wrote: post #26

HTML is the solution to walled-garden lock-in? What? Those walled gardens already use HTML, including some of the semantic elements mentioned (plus ARIA semantic attributes, which are much more sophisticated). > ChatGPT-like interfaces are likely the future of human data access. And the whole point of artificial intelligence systems is that they don't require specialized "machine-readable" annotations in order to pro…

ChatGPT (and its future offspring) can navigate regular websites the same way humans do It seems to be at least a not-yet-true claim, but let’s ignore that for now. It’s interesting if LLMs actually could do this. As I understand it, LLMs are trained on texts and source code among other things. But lacking… let’s name it a reasoning apparatus, can they really look at a DOM tree and tell what it is/does? It’s not a te…

"ChatGPT (and its future offspring) can navigate regular websites the same way humans do"

I don't know how much deeper it goes, but it does have some context:

  Prompt: Given this html, what does an end user see?
  helloyou

  ChatGPT:
  An end user would see only the text "you" on the webpage.

  The first  element has the inline style display:none, which means it is set to be hidden, and its content "hello" will not be visible to the user. On the other hand, the second  element has no specific display style, so it will be visible, and its content "you" will be displayed on the webpage.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#204

Post by toastal »

jamamp wrote: post #22
klardotsh wrote: post #9

I had heard of almost none of these HTML elements, and that's such a shame, because they could seriously help put the "we need JavaScript for every gosh darn thing" ecosystem to an end (or at least return JS to what it was originally meant to be: a way to add some flair, some interactivity, some whatever, but not necessarily a replacement for all of your markup and a full-DOM manager). I'm starting to think my dream…

You might like this: http://youmightnotneedjs.com/

Beware: some of these are effectively hacks possibly messing up the browser history or introducing accessibility issues for screen readers, keyboard users, or otherwise.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#205

Post by enriquto »

mkl95 wrote: post #13

> Pretty much you can highlight text. By default Safari shows a yellow highlight. I like it! Chrome also shows a yellow highlight by default. But since I don't have Safari installed on my machine, I don't know if it's exactly the same color. Also, I'm not sure if other browsers have the same default color. Isn't it a good use case for CSS?

> I don't know if it's exactly the same color.

Why would you care? As long as it appears highlighted it is alright. Let people chose their own highlight colors, and text fonts, and everything.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#206

Post by cassepipe »

I really want to believe in the semantic web, I really want to believe in the ability of the browser to provide me with good default modules with a good default styling, but for now I just have to accept this is not the case. The fact that I have to think about labeling a input (why is this not an attribute ?), not being sure if I should use it as a wrapper of as a sibling with the `for=` attribute... and this is just the tip of the iceberg. For each tag, I have to learn the whole history of its development and make an inquiry about what's the right way to do it nowadays.

We could have had nice things.

Ssssshhh, calm down, let go.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#207

Post by doix »

klardotsh wrote: post #86
Gigachad wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general the issue with these built in components is that you can't theme them. And they stick out like a sore thumb when you get a windows 7 style component in the middle of a modern looking app. They also have basically no extensibility so when you inevitably need to do something half complex, you have to scrap it and start again with JS. So you may as well have just started with JS which just works, gives you fu…

Unfortunately this is a case where we'll have to agree to disagree. Half the time with Electron apps I wish I could disable CSS completely and just use my system theme because it sucks less than whatever the designer came up with for that app (the definition of "sucks less" falls into many axes that vary per application and context; no point in digressing far into that), so what you described would be a feature, not…

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately we are a minority :(. Before react was mainstream, you could "fix" websites pretty easily with things like greasemonkey, but even that is super painful now. CSS modules mangle classnames, so every new version (which are pushed multiple times per week/day) will break your naive css modifications. You can't naively modify DOM elements because React will overwrite them almost instantly.

I know you can write regex in your CSS selectors and use MutationObserver's to update the DOM after react and co are done with it, but it's just so much more painful. Something that used to take maybe 1-2 hours to get some site working/looking how you like it, is now a part time job.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#208

Post by aviavinash »

this article's making me think. In this AI-driven landscape, the focus on semantic structure totally makes sense. But, is it really the remedy for the social media interoperability problem? Are we underestimating the appeal of decentralized platforms? And, do people genuinely not care about these alternatives?

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#209

Post by flagrant_taco »

cassepipe wrote: post #206

I really want to believe in the semantic web, I really want to believe in the ability of the browser to provide me with good default modules with a good default styling, but for now I just have to accept this is not the case. The fact that I have to think about labeling a input (why is this not an attribute ?), not being sure if I should use it as a wrapper of as a sibling with the `for=` attribute... and this is jus…

(I don't know what tools you use so this isn't a comment directed at you specifically)

If web developers spent a fraction of the time required to learn react, tailwind, etc on learning HTML the web would be in a much better spot.

There are definitely quirks and rough edges, but if every web devs knew how to get the most out of semantic HTML we'd likely have a lot less JS in the browser, fewer accessibility bugs, and more eyes on when specs could use an update to fix our replace some of these quirks.

Re: I'm betting on HTML

#210

Post by o1y32 »

toastal wrote: post #204
jamamp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might like this: http://youmightnotneedjs.com/

Beware: some of these are effectively hacks possibly messing up the browser history or introducing accessibility issues for screen readers, keyboard users, or otherwise.

Exactly.

Level 0 developer: don't know how to do this in JS Level 1 developer: knows how to do things in JS, even when sometimes it should not Level 2 developer: knows how to do things without JS Level 3 developer: knows when to use JS and when to use CSS or something else to achieve the goal

Post reply on HN