Live data from Hacker News

The "Cheap" Web

potato.cheap

151–160 of 230 posts

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#151
I've had this idea for something in between Gemini and the modern web that's essentially supposed to capture how the web was in the late 90s/early 00s. Basically just HTML/CSS with GET and POST, no scripting at all.

I don't have the expertise to write this, unfortunately.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#152
> Unfortunately, the HTML source for Apple.com is not so "beautiful on the inside", but Apple engineers shouldn't be faulted for ugly HTML. Their only option was to wrap a sleek skin around shoddy materials.

Can ChatGPT et al make good beautiful HTML/CSS pages? Or take an existing one and actually beautify it?

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#153
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly That's exactly where the hate comes from: I don't want you, the web designer, to have the power to create experiences, because you (collectively) use that power to force experiences on me that I don't want to have.

I didn't express myself as "the web designer" nor I implied that I wished to share experiences with you. What I meant is that I can share experiences to my friends via the browser, which act as a kind of a simple prototyping platform. I want the power to create experiences for some people I know, in a niche setting, without intentionally inviting anyone else.

Yeah, the problem is everyone and their mother are "creating experiences" instead of giving me the info I'm actually looking for...

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#154
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other conclusion I've come to is that web designers way overcomplicate stuff. So I don't want to do a Facebook page. What are my relatively low-cost options? Well, I can have a really basic HTML site but that's a little late-90s. OK, a Wordpress site then. Now I'm dealing with introductory rates that shoot up after a year unless I just use a standard VPS and now I'm having to do a lot of stuff myself. And, as far…

> The other conclusion I've come to is that web designers way overcomplicate stuff. I mean, there's a floor right? The floor being that you need a server that can respond to HTTP requests, yours or otherwise; you need said server accessible from an address to which you can map a DNS record to; and you need HTML files that can be served in response to that request. Few of these are free, but many can be had for very c…

What I've been doing is a homepage on S3 with a few static HTML pages and a link to Blogger for the blog. And a domain name I've had for ages pointed at it.

But, if I'm going to be on Blogger anyway for blogging, my best bet is probably to find a reasonable way to also make it my home page destination. Or maybe not. We'll see. I'm just not sure I'm especially interested in spending a lot of time on tech that isn't my ultimate objective.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#155
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't express myself as "the web designer" nor I implied that I wished to share experiences with you. What I meant is that I can share experiences to my friends via the browser, which act as a kind of a simple prototyping platform. I want the power to create experiences for some people I know, in a niche setting, without intentionally inviting anyone else.

Yeah, the problem is everyone and their mother are "creating experiences" instead of giving me the info I'm actually looking for...

The problem you're describing exists in your own expectations.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I notice a lot of hate toward JS, but honestly when I first stumbled upon it I felt like a dream came true; it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly The complaints about JS are almost never about the concept of a programming language that runs in your browser, and the upside you describe seems to apply to any language that runs in your browser.

The only languages browsers should understand are markup languages, scripting and programming: no, none of that. Documents, not programs.

Why?

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#158

I love this. I've seen a lot of similar "use HTML as HTML" type things recently (probably a lot coming from the HATEOAS crowd). I'm not a web developer, and I really don't understand how we've ended up in this state where: - web starts as a means to share documents, HTML is built around that - eventually people want to build general applications (a la google docs) so they build tools that let you build non-document t…

The platform isn't that much of a mess imo. I think if you look at individual web application code bases they're kind of a mess because the penalty for doing it wrong isn't that high compared to real physical engineering just throwing the business thing in without planning actually does have a higher ROI. If anything the 30 year old legacy code bases are still much worse than the typical React application and services tangle you get today.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#159

Has anyone proposed CommonMark over HTTP? Like, just shove markdown in a GET response with Content-Type: text/markdown And let the client decide how to render it. It'd be like Gopher, but modern.

This used to be something one could sketch up in a couple hours on the web, with registerContentHandler.

Removed in 2018. I don't totally disagree with the reasoning, but when the web kills amazing flexibility points for lack of heavy adoption it makes me sad. There's so many good ideas that should be left in, even though society isn't actually so bloody awesome as it should be. https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.platform/c/jeTDLz38_...

Also, scoffing at 0.2% of users of a web browser is multiple orders of magnitude away from where the line should be; these people are a fucking joke & shame the fuck on them, losers. Jonathan Kingston, what the heck dude? What the frelling heck?

Also no other browsers implemented it! Adoption needed help! Not to be murdered.

Tl;Dr, adding new content types used to be easy & simple & you could register a site as a content handler but they always kept the feature locked down then killed it without ever letting people go for it at all. Gatekept.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#160
The article pulls together a lot of lovely material and links and ideas, but it starts with such a toxic & conservative outlook.

Sure, apple.com's source might not be as beautiful as their products but potato.cheap immediately turns around and says it's not apples fault, and trashes the web and says it needs sto be replaces by something else.

It just seems to be like the industrial world isn't going to improve without being lead there, but that there's so much leeway for the better awesome web to evince itself. The manifest possibilities are what so many people see as a bad and awful thing, but I think taste & discernment & internal structure are incredibly complicated & any kind of broad scale human hyper-engine of note is going to take more than a decade of effort for us to really suss out where to go & what looks & feels right. There isn't going to be the perfect system created out of nothing that makes everything great; it's power flexibility and possibility that we refine &harness onward to get to exceptional, and the web has ongoingly been an amazing host to that dialog in ways nothing else has been or from what I can see could be.

I'm so tired of those who most strongly clearly advocate for better online systems being so retrograde. I miss the hope & buoyancy of those excited for stuff! Web Components and webrtc and QUIC and moq, our new awesome css flexbox and grid and layers, css variables. I'm still as thirsty and in love & still a believer that we can keep honing new & great. To shock industry into not sucking we just need to lead towards better, towards protocols & interoperation & elegance personally. The virtue will come out, and will be aped, as we develop, if we dare be better.

Post reply on HN