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

You might not need JavaScript

youmightnotneedjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 254 posts

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#161

Post by Roboprog »

tracker1 wrote: post #91
pmlnr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compile time requirements and runtime requirements are different things.

You could go the other way just as easily, and eliminate the css requirement. Doesn't mean it's the best way to do a given thing. Also, the examples don't support a lot of use cases... the accordian and tab examples, while interesting will submit goofy information if they're containing multi-part forms. The image changer will break other bits of navigation, or similar changers by abusing the target. Similarly, the li…

Amen. If you are really good at CSS, you might play to that strength. Or, you might play to different strengths. There's probably more than one way to do it in many cases that doesn't hurt the project.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#162

Post by wackro »

nfriedly wrote: post #143

When I was hired on the Watson team, the first thing they asked me to do was help improve performance of their AngularJS-based website. It was all-around slow, especially for the initial page view. I stripped out AngularJS and most of the other JavaScript, and published a website that was almost pure static HTML. It loaded very quickly. My manager thought it was hilarious - his "JavaScript expert" came in and deleted…

"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger." - Dijkstra

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#164

Post by agumonkey »

Roboprog wrote: post #159
agumonkey wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is already well known quality[1]. I find Parent work even deeper, he pivoted the whole thing to make his main skill a second class citizen because that's what it was to be in this context. [1] I regularly nerdgasm at LibreOffice releases reading how many thousands LoC they removed from the code base. ps: beside code golf, I think there should be a patch golf thing. Try the smallest changeset that fixes or add a…

I like the idea of "patch golf". If only people would at least do a diff before they commit to spot gratuitous reformatting or accidental changes :-(

That's the exact reason I thought of it [1]. With "large" code base, every character impacts the project, patch size becomes a skill. That said, it's so tempting to fix multiple almost related things in one go.

[1] also, git surgically precise patch mindset helped too.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#165

Post by coldtea »

olavgg wrote: post #112
arkx wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is parroting a year old clickbait headline ( https://nolanlawson.com/2015/06/30/safari-is-the-new-ie/ ) where the main gripes were that - Apple didn't attend EdgeConf 2015 - https://webkit.org/blog/ was not updated often enough - Safari 9 had a seriously buggy IndexedDB (fixed in Safari 10)

I would rather refer to this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12051267 I'm not the only one who think Safari is a joke compared to the competition. While IE6 was much much worse than what Safari is today, I feel like history is repeating itself again. And ES6 support is irrelevant when the main goal is to make sure websites renders and behave correctly, which is more painful for Safari than the other browsers. I…

>I'm not the only one who think Safari is a joke compared to the competition.

How does that opinion survive reality, e.g. Safari being the first browser to reach 100% ES6 compliance?

>I still have flexbox issues on Safari https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136041*

So? All browsers still have Flexbox issues. Here are Chrome's:

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?can=2&q=com...

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#166

Post by woogley »

coldtea wrote: post #165
olavgg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather refer to this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12051267 I'm not the only one who think Safari is a joke compared to the competition. While IE6 was much much worse than what Safari is today, I feel like history is repeating itself again. And ES6 support is irrelevant when the main goal is to make sure websites renders and behave correctly, which is more painful for Safari than the other browsers. I…

> I'm not the only one who think Safari is a joke compared to the competition. How does that opinion survive reality, e.g. Safari being the first browser to reach 100% ES6 compliance? > I still have flexbox issues on Safari https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136041* So? All browsers still have Flexbox issues. Here are Chrome's: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?can=2&q=com...

ES6 has very little to do with keeping up with Web APIs. See https://platform-status.mozilla.org/

Notably Fetch API and WebRTC for my use-cases.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#167

Post by eyelidlessness »

fenomas wrote: post #35
jwblackwell wrote: post #20

Does anyone else feel that a site called "You Might Not Need Javascript", probably shouldn't use Javascript?

Do any of the examples use Javascript? Or are you saying the site shouldn't use JS for syntax highlighting or whatever, even though that's not the sort of thing it claims JS isn't needed for?

Why would syntax highlighting need JavaScript?

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#168

Post by robinson7d »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #58

So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...but I digress. Some of these are cool examples. Others, like the modal, won't scale very well because now you can trigger modals by tabbing (breaks keyboard navigation) or most of the form examples as you'll likely hit many endpoints that require JS…

None of these requires SCSS at all. You may verify by grabbing the SCSS they provide in the codepen and pasting it into http://www.sassmeister.com/

Most examples are equally compact in plain old CSS. In fact, many of them are just plain CSS displayed in a window labeled "SCSS".

The places using SCSS seem like they're simply being more sane in allowing a user to change numbers trivially. Instead of saying "just change all the 400px throughout to 500px", one can change the `$slide-width` definition in one place (usually at the top).

There's also the style preference of nesting to group. But neither of those make it a strict dependency.

---------

EDIT: I'm not saying that I disagree with your assertion that CSS is a bad place to layer logic from a maintainability standpoint; I'm more pointing out that blaming it on SCSS makes no sense in this context.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#169

Post by zeveb »

So, we're all familiar with the fact that imgur requires JavaScript in order to display more than the first few images in a gallery (the 'view more' link executes JavaScript; there's no way to page forward). That's highly annoying, since HTML supports exactly this use case.

It's understandable, though, because we are not imgur's customers: its customers are advertisers, and if we have JavaScript disabled then imgur's customers have less ability to violate our privacy. Thus, it's in imgur's best interest to encourage us to reduce our privacy & security, so that its customers may have their way with our browsers. I can't see that the imgur programmers would care about the fact that they can do amazing things with CSS.

But recently I've discovered that Target's website simply refuses to display products without JavaScript. This is insane: Target are, presumably, in the business of selling things. They ought to want to display a picture of their item and provide me a link to buy it; that's in their best interest. Building that sort of website is easier than building the sort of ecommerce site which cannot even display an image and a link without JavaScript. It should be in Target's best interest to do the right thing.

But it doesn't. Its programmers ought to be interested in a site like youmightnotneedjs.com, but are they? If they didn't bother to build their website properly before, is this likely to encourage them now?

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#170

Post by zeveb »

gkya wrote: post #155
kqr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I think you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. A SCSS dependency isn't that bad because the client will never see it. What is bad is code that's hard to maintain. When I did a stint of front end development recently, I went in with the mindset that "JavaScript is evil for the user and therefore should not be used when avoidable". I discovered after a while that although you can replace JavaScrip…

Javascript is not evil, evil is when it's used unnecessarily, and when your page displaying 4-5 pages of text starts out 2mb without images and becomes 15mb as I scroll to bottom because you're pinging various third parties for analytics and whatnot, and when I can't view you pages where the essence is a couple paragraphs of text but you wanted to render it via Javascript and I have it blocked and you not whitelisted…

> Javascript is not evil

We-e-ell, it's not a good language. But it's what we have.

I agree, though, that it can be used well and does have a place in writing good web pages and sites, but that when it is used to create horrible 'web apps' it is being used for evil.

Post reply on HN