Live data from Hacker News

No more CSS and HTML, just JS

ojjs.org

101–110 of 191 posts

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#101
post #98
post #62

This post is getting a lot of flack from people who haven't given it more than a glance. -------Benefits 1. SEO is not a problem. Since OJ can be compiled on the server-side, it's comparable to EjS, JADE or other templating languages, which means SEO is not a problem. 2. Current code-size can be ignored in the long run. This code doesn't have to be sent to the client (since it can run on the server), could possibly b…

Agreed, this is a good summary. My first initial reaction was one of slight skepticism, but one can reason pretty easily the output can be done on the server. When you work back on logic that way, what about having your site pre-built sitting on the server with only oj.s on your dev machines? As evan mentioned re-usable components that are easily dropped in to create faster website builds. Seems like an interesting c…

If that's the case, then why not use one of the many static Web site generators? Combined with a simple CSS library like Pure.io for some of the UI elements.

It is possible that some more complex UI elements (say a Calendar) will have to be done in Javascript, but that seems like a worthwhile tradeoff for simplicity, efficiency, and maintainability.

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#102
post #81

Great technology. But it reminds me a little bit to perl cgi in the 90's. print h1('hello world'); I mean, this is great for people fast learning, but will never work against "fronted" people in the average (non top) company. I wish I'm wrong.

Build good ideas, don't be constrained by limited people.

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#104
post #81

Great technology. But it reminds me a little bit to perl cgi in the 90's. print h1('hello world'); I mean, this is great for people fast learning, but will never work against "fronted" people in the average (non top) company. I wish I'm wrong.

Build good ideas, don't be constrained by limited people.

In any other random moment, that sentence could have sound simply inspiring to me.

But right now. At this point when I'm right now very long to explain, that sentence, has made my day. Up-voted.

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#105
HTML Version - 56 Characters, no dependencies:

Theycreatethemselves

OJJS Version - 57 Characters, thousands of lines of js dependencies:

var myList = oj.BulletList('They','create','themselves');

The fact that just writing the html output is the same (and in this case less) amount of characters then the ojjs functions makes me unsure about this. especially considering all the extra dependencies.

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#107

Not really sure what problem this is trying to solve. I am more enthused about the potential of Web Components, shadow-dom etc. [1] Take a look at Polymer [2]. By abstracting away the concept of the contrived set of HTML Elements we currently have we can create new 'complex' elements/components while retaining consistency with the rest of the DOM API. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-components-intro-20130606/ [2]:…

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's also part of HTML now, so it has that going for it as well.

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#108
post #105

HTML Version - 56 Characters, no dependencies: They create themselves OJJS Version - 57 Characters, thousands of lines of js dependencies: var myList = oj.BulletList('They','create','themselves'); The fact that just writing the html output is the same (and in this case less) amount of characters then the ojjs functions makes me unsure about this. especially considering all the extra dependencies.

I would also argue that in terms of maintenance, it would be more time consuming for me to debug native html, css, and javascript, and then fix those bug in a completely different environment.

Re: No more CSS and HTML, just JS

#109
post #105

HTML Version - 56 Characters, no dependencies: They create themselves OJJS Version - 57 Characters, thousands of lines of js dependencies: var myList = oj.BulletList('They','create','themselves'); The fact that just writing the html output is the same (and in this case less) amount of characters then the ojjs functions makes me unsure about this. especially considering all the extra dependencies.

When you write oj.BulletList({collection:lotsOfData}) it will be much smaller I promise=).
Post reply on HN