Rebuilding our tech stack for the new facebook.com

Post by aerovistae » Fri, May 08, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

scalableUnicon wrote: post #76

I rarely use Facebook, but when I do I use https://m.facebook.com instead of the main site. Similarly i.reddit.com and the HTML version of Gmail. Which aren't great looking, but pretty usable. I hope these versions will be maintained for a long time.

Post by detaro » Fri, May 08, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #116

raphaelj wrote: post #19

Quite sincerely, it's a total failure. I got the chance to try the new interface, and it's so slow that it's barely usable. It's even slower than the old website, that was already painfully slow. Loading a random profile takes 8 seconds. Opening a messenger discussion takes 6 seconds. It reminds me of the new Reddit website. Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago. It's really sad that in 2020, 10k+ engineers…

Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago We'll see what the data show. I have been reading comments about Facebook's supposed decline for as long as I've been aware of Facebook and yet their published numbers continually show greater engagement. https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo...

Post by freedomben » Fri, May 08, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

munchbunny wrote: post #112

freedomben wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

better experience for who? For the developer it's a way better experience. For the consumer it often isn't because of inefficient bloat, but if effort is put into packaging it sensibly it can be better thanks to build pipelines/optimizations. In my experience, there's a lot of apps that would have never gotten written in the first place without the boost from React/Angular/etc. It simply takes way longer (which means…

I've been doing FE development on and off since IE5/6, starting out with pure JS and Ajax, and in my opinion the modern FE developer experience using the major frameworks is a generational improvement over the messes we used to write. There are still frustrations, but it's a lot better than it used to be. Browser API's and CSS have all improved drastically since then, so pure JS and Ajax isn't as bad. I still avoid f…

Post by taurath » Fri, May 08, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

edhelas wrote: post #50

tambourine_man wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I won’t take blame for that. Still haven’t found a use case for React/Angular or SASS/whatever. If I’m guilty of something is not recognizing the validity of those tools, as I’m sure there are. But 2MB CSS is simply inconceivable to me.

Big +1. I would be really interested to find one, only ONE, website where React/Angular was really bringing a better experience and better final product than a standard pure JS with simple Ajax system.

Post by slipheen » Fri, May 08, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #116

raphaelj wrote: post #19

Quite sincerely, it's a total failure. I got the chance to try the new interface, and it's so slow that it's barely usable. It's even slower than the old website, that was already painfully slow. Loading a random profile takes 8 seconds. Opening a messenger discussion takes 6 seconds. It reminds me of the new Reddit website. Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago. It's really sad that in 2020, 10k+ engineers…

Facebook was more enjoyable to use 12 years ago We'll see what the data show. I have been reading comments about Facebook's supposed decline for as long as I've been aware of Facebook and yet their published numbers continually show greater engagement. https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo...