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

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#11

Post by dreen »

gtirloni wrote: post #4

I didn't get the point this website is trying to make. All distributed apps are like that at time of delivering the code. If that's so wrong with Javascript, what's the proposed alternative (that has a chance of being available everywhere)?

I think the point of this is more against requiring some JS to load and work in order to do things which do not require JS in the first place, like displaying some static text or laying out the page.

It also highlights the importance of progressive enhancement.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#12

Post by cabirum »

joelanman wrote: post #10
cabirum wrote: post #6

Right, but these problems are not specific to javascript requests. Any request can fail, be blocked, interfered with, or partially received. Users can switch off CSS, too. Html page may not load completely. So what? Some of these issues are fixed with https or http/2. Some with CDN fallbacks or just sane coding. Some are not developers problems - such as clueless users installing malicious extensions or luddite users…

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.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#13

Post by mariusz79 »

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…

I am one of the "luddites". While it's becoming impossible now with all of that JS Overload, I would love to be able to go to a website with JS disabled, and read the text explaining why I should spend more time on the website and trust the website enough to enable JS or some other unnecessary (in the context of content consumption) plugin.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#14

Post by mariusz79 »

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…

> that just can't be done in the browser without JS.

And that's fine. I don't think any one should complain when you open a webapp and it requires you to have JS enabled. The problem is that when I go to a website with JS disabled, I often don't get any messages, but blank or simply broken pages.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#15

Post by zupa-hu »

While the point may be true, it's like don't drive a car because people do die in car accidents. The post is misleading as most of the cards present rare edge cases where JS doesn't work. Show percentages as well.

Yes JS may not work 0.1% of the time. So let's fix it once all the higher priority issues are fixed.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#16

Post by z1mm32m4n »

lerouxb wrote: post #7

Same thing applies to any content type. Images, CSS, video support, etc. Why pick on JS specifically?

If an image fails to load, the browser draws a little box with some alternate text describing that box. If the CSS doesn't load, your text and content is displayed in a weird font without the grid layout you were using, but if you wrote your HTML semantically (using instead of etc.), the browser can still show most of your content, and you can still move around on the page.

If the JavaScript fails to load and you were using it to significantly alter the content on your page, for example loading a news article asynchronously, the entire page fails to load.

I don't mean to pick on this app in particular (I actually think it's really cool and I plan on using it and learning from it), but take a look at what happens to http://hswolff.github.io/hn-ng2/ when you switch off JavaScript--it's completely unusable. Now try switching off JavaScript on Hacker News--all the links and comments are still there.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#18

Post by indeyets »

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.

Initial server-side rendering is still an option. User will be able to read the page, at least. And if URLs use a sane scheme, navigation would work too

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#19

Post by scrollaway »

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…

The web is trying to do two things at once right now: Be a platform for applications and be a medium for textual, document-like content.

The former obviously needs a proper scripting language. The latter should definitely be built with progressive enhancement in mind because it's a good thing.

Why this urge, on either side, to immediately apply their issues to an area which doesn't warrant it? Apps can't be progressively-enhanced without making things stupid. Documents shouldn't rely on javascript to be readable (in most cases).

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#20

Post by ant6n »

zupa-hu wrote: post #15

While the point may be true, it's like don't drive a car because people do die in car accidents. The post is misleading as most of the cards present rare edge cases where JS doesn't work. Show percentages as well. Yes JS may not work 0.1% of the time. So let's fix it once all the higher priority issues are fixed.

The comparison is not very good. There are plenty of arguments around not driving cars; safety is a valid concern.
Post reply on HN