Live data from Hacker News

Plain Vanilla Web

plainvanillaweb.com

81–90 of 715 posts

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#81
post #44

This guide assumes web components is a viable alternative for frameworks like React or Vue. That's a very superficial assumption. React and Vue render the UI as declarative function of state, with the help of components. That's why we use those frameworks. Web components don't solve the state management problem.

I get so tired of framework people talking about state as the hill they are willing to die on. State is stupid simple. You use the frameworks because you cannot figure it out on your own and need the giant tool to do it for you.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#82

Note that you can make things even simpler than this: just use vanilla JS to compose HTML strings, and plug them into divs using innerHTML = "...". When your state changes due to user input, just rebuild the page using the new data. I've been building many simple apps using this technique, it works fine. I'm sure there is some kind of performance hit; it's almost never an issue. I have never seen any browser compatib…

Beware of xss

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#83
post #31

I work for about 2k users, they do not give a shit about reactivity... build a monolith, make it comfy, embrace page refresh (nobody gives a fuck about that in the real world), and get shit done.

You can get smooth transitions with just css too with @view-transition https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@view-trans...

Worth mentioning @view-transition is still not supported in Firefox.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#84
I think there are two separate things.

The static websites and beautiful designs

With a lot of iframes and widgets, running some kind of services like Disqus chatrooms were

It’s far more secure, too.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#85
post #66

I'm not against frameworks, but in many cases, they're unnecessary. I've always questioned why we should add 100KB of JavaScript to a page before writing a single line of real code. My team and I built https://restofworld.org without any frameworks. The feedback, from surveys, outreach, and unsolicited emails, has been overwhelmingly positive, especially around usability and reading experience. We might adopt a frame…

Ahhh, the beauty of WordPress-generated static pages.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#86
Great resource! I particularly like the fact that their web component section doesn't use the shadow DOM. It's really too bad custom elements got associated with shadow DOM, as they're so useful beyond the more niche usage cases of the shadow DOM.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#87
post #73

I work for about 2k users, they do not give a shit about reactivity... build a monolith, make it comfy, embrace page refresh (nobody gives a fuck about that in the real world), and get shit done.

As a counterpoint, many systems that were originally implemented as native desktop applications have since been migrated to the web. The motivation for this shift is not particularly strong from a technical standpoint, but it is a practical one: deploying native applications is simply too costly. The web finally provides a widespread standard for deploying applications inexpensively. Unfortunately, the technology use…

> deploying native applications is simply too costly.

I do not understand why people hold this impression, especially in corporate environments.

Windows supports both system and per-user deployments; the latter so you don't even need administrator rights. And with Intune, deployments can be pulled or pushed.

Many desktop applications are written in .Net so you don't even need to install the runtime because it's preinstalled on the operating system.

Even ClickOnce deployments -- which you can deploy on the web or on a file share -- pretty much make deployments painless.

EDIT: For the naysayers: please then explain to me why Steam is so successful at deploying large games on multiple platforms?

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#88

Note that you can make things even simpler than this: just use vanilla JS to compose HTML strings, and plug them into divs using innerHTML = "...". When your state changes due to user input, just rebuild the page using the new data. I've been building many simple apps using this technique, it works fine. I'm sure there is some kind of performance hit; it's almost never an issue. I have never seen any browser compatib…

Make sure to sanitize the content before inserting if you use this approach.

> Warning: This is a security risk if the string to be inserted might contain potentially malicious content. When inserting user-supplied data you should always consider using a sanitizer library, in order to sanitize the content before it is inserted.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/inn...

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#89

Question - why would you do this in current year ? Is it that much more performant? I might be ignorant but frameworks seem to be the lingua franca for a reason - they make your life much easier to manage once set up!

Well, one nice thing about doing things this way is that it'll still be as viable in five years as it is today.

I'm sitting on two UIs at work that nobody can really do anything with, because the cutting-edge, mainstream-acceptable frameworks at the time they are built in are now deprecated, very difficult to even reconstruct with all the library motion, and as a result, effectively frozen because we can't practically tweak them without someone dedicating a week just to put all the pieces back together enough to rebuild the system... and then that week of work has to largely be done again in a year if we have to tweak it again.

Meanwhile the little website I wrote with just vanilla HTML, CSS, & JS is chugging along, and we can and have pushed in the occasional tweak to it without it blowing up the world or requiring someone to spend a week reconstructing some weird specific environment.

I'm actually not against web frameworks in the general sense, but they do need to pull their weight and I think a lot of people underestimate their long-term expense for a lot of sites. Doing a little bit of JS to run a couple of "fetch" commands is not that difficult. It is true that if you start building a large enough site that you will eventually reconstruct your own framework out of necessity, and it'll be inferior to React, but there's a lot of sites under that "large enough" threshold.

Perhaps the best way to think about it is that this is the "standard library" framework that ships in the browsers, and it's worth knowing about it so that you can analyze when it is sufficient for your needs. Because if it is sufficient, it has a lot of advantages to it. If it isn't, then by all means go and get something else... again, I'm definitely not in the camp of "frameworks have no utility". But this should always be part of your analysis because of its unique benefits it has that no other framework has, like its 0KB initial overhead and generally unbeatable performance (because all the other frameworks are built on top of this one).

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#90
post #31

I work for about 2k users, they do not give a shit about reactivity... build a monolith, make it comfy, embrace page refresh (nobody gives a fuck about that in the real world), and get shit done.

You can get smooth transitions with just css too with @view-transition https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@view-trans...

This feels like bringing the annoying transitions people used to use between slides in PowerPoint to the web. There's nothing smooth about the transition in the linked demo, it's quite jarring.
Post reply on HN