Something feels wrong. The median should be able to inherit the benefits of technology produced at the high end without such inheriting massive costs.
I can only think that modern front end development has failed
121–130 of 521 posts
Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#122Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#123I'm bothered by a lot of contemporary web development. Many things are implemented using far too much heavy JS code, and user experience suffers. I also think a lot of people drastically underestimate how much we get out of modern tools. In a followup tweet[1] and in this thread, antirez says that we haven't improved interaction in 20 years. Let's consider gmail, which is close enough to 20 years old. But at the time…
From defining the entire approach when it launched, Gmail has somehow turned into the single best argument /against/ SPAs. I dread opening it, because I know it's going to be slow to load and slow to use. I don't know how it went so wrong. Original Gmail was a revelation. Today it's sludge.
Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#124I'd like to add a bit more nuance. Modern frontend development provides many opportunities for failure. These failures often make their way into production. I, personally, get great results with modern FE development. My users are happy. I am happy. It's all very successful. All the defenders of modern FE development will likely chime in with the same sentiment. I also get great results with C, which arguably provide…
Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#125HN seems to be pretty split on this issue. I concur with the linked tweet. Using the web beyond very simple pages like HN feels like wading through garbage. Everything is slow, laggy, loads ridiculous amounts of stuff (I live in a country where traffic is very expensive at the moment, so this becomes more noticeable). Things are also flaky and need reloading whenever they get into broken states. The only way I use th…
Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I read it and feel it's the same as how we perceive modern music. Everyone says music "used to be better" but that's just survival bias. Well, if the top 100 tracks from, say, 1961 to 2021 progressively get less musically diverse, with simpler chords, less harmonies, less timbral variety, lesser melodies, more repeatition, less dynamics, less genre variety, more infantile lyrics (something that has been studied and…
The articles you're linking are proven to be misrepresenting. They for example look at a really small subset of music "Million song dataset" and only analysed basic metrics that could be automatically measured. To be honest I think the linked Spanish paper and the senationalist "Science proves modern music is bad" should be retracted since the methodology is flawed. Don't take my word for it, take Tantacrul's - compo…
Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#127Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#128Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#129In what way are current websites not usable?
A lot of websites: - reimplement browser features and do a bad job of it - are unnecessarily slow - try to stop being slow by breaking even more stuff Some examples I’ve come across within the last week: - Twitter pages randomly failing to load until the next hard refresh, probably because of service workers somehow (which are unnecessary for user experience improvement since HTTP cache exists and I don’t have notifi…
I didn't even realize they're reimplementing browser features and that's a really cool observation.
I think it's paramount to understand that this is not a list of bugs to fix, it's a list to convince us that we should consider Server Side Rendering more often and avoid client side navigation, history API with all its possible race conditions...
Re: I can only think that modern front end development has failed
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they mean https://m.facebook.com - a lightweight web version.
I tried it. It's very ugly and featureless on desktop but it does load fast.