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

Everyone has JavaScript, right?

kryogenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#51

Post by cabirum »

wtbob wrote: post #46
cabirum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an option. Concrete examples: anything webgl, image editing, games, even a simple curl app from yesterdays post (curlbuilder.com). Implementing curl app server-side would require double work which is against principles of progressive enhancement (or programming in general).

> Implementing curl app server-side would require double work which is against principles of progressive enhancement (or programming in general). That's exactly the use-case of server-side JavaScript! Write a small library to build curl commands; use it in both the web page's JS and on the server, with a small shim on each. 1¼ times the work.

Thus forcing me to use js as a server-side lang.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#52

Post by dto-games »

1971genocide wrote: post #50
dto-games wrote: post #45

The thin-client revolution is finally here, and what an awful pile of shit it is. Whatever happened to software that just works? Answer: Microsoft. Their legal team started the browser-as-OS delusion with their 1990s freakout about Netscape; this was an anti-consumer, anti-competitive lock-in strategy which now masquerades as a fundamental principle of Good Clean Living for people who give speeches about their startu…

haha, that was a funny rant. You have expressed many problems with js clearly out. Is there a solution ? I do not see a better alternative, I didn't start programming in js out of spite. I tried to learn the old neckbeard C infrastructure formally and it seemed to be a mess. Even though I understand how most of it works, if you are trying to create products of value to people you really cannot use it. Hopefully my ki…

Hey thanks. I'm good at ranting. I also have that hope for a better tomorrow. Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating for C/neckbeards Take care :)

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#54

Post by discostrings »

cabirum wrote: post #12
joelanman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is at the bottom - progressive enhancement. If at least the html makes it across the wire, a progressively enhanced website will still "work": you can still read content, click links, submit forms http://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-still-...

See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9432629 The web is no longer a collection of text content with links and forms. Many, is not most, web apps cannot be represented using html alone as progressive enhancement suggests. The core functionality just isn't there.

Most sites aren't web apps--they're content-based, with text, pictures, and links. Progressive enhancement makes the most sense for the majority of content on the web.

Web applications are certainly useful in some contexts, and progressive enhancement may not be the best approach if your application requires a lot of extended interaction. But building a web app to display primarily text- and picture-based articles and documents is misguided, and it does web users a disservice.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#55

Post by zaphar »

dto-games wrote: post #45

The thin-client revolution is finally here, and what an awful pile of shit it is. Whatever happened to software that just works? Answer: Microsoft. Their legal team started the browser-as-OS delusion with their 1990s freakout about Netscape; this was an anti-consumer, anti-competitive lock-in strategy which now masquerades as a fundamental principle of Good Clean Living for people who give speeches about their startu…

That's quite the dystopian picture you paint there. I especially love the exaggeration for effect you weave throughout the essay as well as the masterful way you ignore any trends that counter your point.

All in all this is expertly executed.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#57

Post by tomjen3 »

donatj wrote: post #26

I find more and more sites using JS for layout and it being an incredibly frustrating experience on my phone. The whole site loads and I'm reading the article for 4 or 5 seconds and then the js kicks in, scrolling locks, everything stops while The page redraws. On some sites, including Android Centeral of all things, this can stop me from reading text I ALREADY HAVE for upwards of 20 seconds while it reflows. Simply…

Wouldn't have been much of a problem if CSS hadn't sucked so badly. If you want certain layouts and have to support old browsers you have to use JS.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#58

Post by 1971genocide »

dto-games wrote: post #52
1971genocide wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

haha, that was a funny rant. You have expressed many problems with js clearly out. Is there a solution ? I do not see a better alternative, I didn't start programming in js out of spite. I tried to learn the old neckbeard C infrastructure formally and it seemed to be a mess. Even though I understand how most of it works, if you are trying to create products of value to people you really cannot use it. Hopefully my ki…

Hey thanks. I'm good at ranting. I also have that hope for a better tomorrow. Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating for C/neckbeards Take care :)

you didn't advocate anything.

Are you scared for advocating something that will be down-voted mercilessly ?

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#59

Post by tomjen3 »

moron4hire wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I entirely agree that JavaScript should be developed in a Progressive Enhancement style, for two reasons: If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all. Semantic HTML and CSS are pretty amazing at adapting content fluidly and dynamically to a wide range of users and devi…

Reddit could work without JS, you would just have to reload the page every single time you commented.

You currently have to do that on HN too, so you can see how annoying it is.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#60

Post by Perdition »

cabirum wrote: post #49
chriswarbo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such as clueless users installing malicious extensions or luddite users switching off js. So if I run arbitrary, potentially-malicious code from the Web, in the form of a browser extension, I'm "clueless"? Yet if I don't run arbitrary, potentially-malicious code from the Web, in the form of JS, I'm a "luddite"? Considering that many browser extensions are implemented in JS, the only difference is in control: users…

Extensions have access to browser APIs not available to webpages and run on your every request. Thus they are inherently more dangerous. So installing unsigned extensions from questionable sources makes you clueless, yes. Vanilla js running on webpages should be considered relatively safe. It's sandboxed and not able to do anything - malicious of not - outside it's restricted environment. It can't even get your locat…

>It's sandboxed and not able to do anything - malicious of not - outside it's restricted environment.

That argument is like the one that Linux is more secure because a malicious program will only have user rights.

Malicious scripts can do plenty of damage inside their restricted environment. There are whole books on how to securely write web apps due to the danger of "sandboxed" malicious JS.

Personally I don't want to be tracked and profiled yet nearly every major website is running multiple tracking and profiling scripts.

>If you could somehow disable all logic from executing in your OS native apps, would you do this by default?

I do disable native apps ability to communicate with the network unless they actually need it.

P.S. I also find that those who take a pure "webapp" approach introduce design flaws into their apps. In Toggl for example when browsing summaries you can't open multiple tasks in detail because instead of using a hyperlink they use JS to fetch and display the task details. Any content link should be able to be opened in a new window/tab.

Post reply on HN