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

VS Code can do that?

vscodecandothat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: VS Code can do that?

#161

Post by bunderbunder »

Ninn wrote: post #138
bunderbunder wrote: post #127

In the spirit of cranky HN bikeshedding, I present: The page body, as seen by a NoScript user: Web developers: Please, you can do better than this.

Please know that no one really cares. You must realise you cannot expect to consume our applications but only on your own terms. Theres no contract saying you should ONLY serve HTML on the web.

I popped over to a different browser to take a peek. That's not an "application". It's static page with some embedded YouTube videos, and some hyperlinks. It just happens to be one where it takes about 5 seconds (on my computer) before the hyperlinks become clickable, for some reason.

I do agree that there is no contract saying you should only serve HTML on the web. But still, you can do better than this.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#162

Post by prepend »

switch007 wrote: post #102
prepend wrote: post #90

Is there a way to have intellisense sense work with python dictionaries? It seems like intellisense for json would be a similar issue as nested dictionary representations in json, but I can’t find anything that does this and don’t want to use another class just for faster coding.

On a related note, Pycharm has it IIRC

Good point. I saw this in Pycharm but won’t pay.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#163

Post by chalupa-man »

Amezarak wrote: post #144
Ninn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please know that no one really cares. You must realise you cannot expect to consume our applications but only on your own terms. Theres no contract saying you should ONLY serve HTML on the web.

I can't speak for gp, but the reason I whitelist Javascript is because the dozens of third party scripts pages load provide no benefits to me as a user and only waste my bandwidth and cpu while risking my security and privacy. Sometimes the first-party scripts do something useful and I enable them. That a simple document with embedded videos "needs" js to load at all is sheer lunacy. The modern web is a massive house…

One of the increasingly popular uses of JS is to save bandwidth. Using JS, you can ask the browser if the user is on a metered connection or an unlimited one, what their estimated bandwidth capacity is, what their real resolution is, and load appropriate assets (or conditionally load content). With JS disabled, a user on a pay-per-kilobyte 360x640 cellphone is going to get assets deemed acceptable on the manager's 1440p desktop. There are already quite a few websites where disabling JS more than doubles your bandwidth usage -- and sites that are only even usable in third world countries because of JS like this -- and that's going to increase as screen and media quality grow.

Not to mention the huge accessibility benefits that can come from changing the way a site behaves (not just visually but in terms of things like tab and focus behaviour or separating components out) for disabled users. Doing that reliably and effectively for all content on all devices is much easier if you can identify the needs before downloading the content which means JS-loaded content and so it can come down to deciding whether to annoy NoScript users or disabled users.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#164

Post by allover »

JoshMnem wrote: post #151
Ninn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please know that no one really cares. You must realise you cannot expect to consume our applications but only on your own terms. Theres no contract saying you should ONLY serve HTML on the web.

In general, one should serve HTML on the web unless you're doing something that requires JavaScript. JS is a big security/privacy risk. At the moment, I keep JS and CSS off by default on my main browsing profile, overriding it with umatrix when a site requires it and it looks useful enough to bother.

In general, one should consider the audience of the content, not NoScript users, in this case.

> JS is a big security/privacy risk.

No, 3rd party JS (and 3rd party cookies, JS regardless) allow you to be tracked. And ad-blockers deal with that. Blocking 1st party JS is of tenuous benefit w.r.t security/privacy.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#165

Post by sjbase »

sergiotapia wrote: post #68
wink wrote: post #18

Really nice idea, but 90% focused on Web (frontend?) development. HTML, JS, and not much else. :( Still found 2 useful things for me, Parens colorizer and settings sync via Github Gist.

I use it extensively for Elixir development. It's fantastic.

Question, do you use any of the Elixir linter/debugger/highlighter plugins? Have any recommendations?

I'm early on in evaluating ElixirLS and vscode-elixir but have run into some issues with both.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#166

Post by Amezarak »

chalupa-man wrote: post #163
Amezarak wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for gp, but the reason I whitelist Javascript is because the dozens of third party scripts pages load provide no benefits to me as a user and only waste my bandwidth and cpu while risking my security and privacy. Sometimes the first-party scripts do something useful and I enable them. That a simple document with embedded videos "needs" js to load at all is sheer lunacy. The modern web is a massive house…

One of the increasingly popular uses of JS is to save bandwidth. Using JS, you can ask the browser if the user is on a metered connection or an unlimited one, what their estimated bandwidth capacity is, what their real resolution is, and load appropriate assets (or conditionally load content). With JS disabled, a user on a pay-per-kilobyte 360x640 cellphone is going to get assets deemed acceptable on the manager's 14…

That doubtless provides some reasonable bandwidth savings on certain media sites, but I'm pretty sure the whitelisting approach is going to come out far, far ahead in general, as most ads don't load and some Javascript assets are themselves megabytes in size.

Also, IME, disabled users hate javascript. But my experience is limited to a few vision impaired folks.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#168

Post by pvg »

bunderbunder wrote: post #127

In the spirit of cranky HN bikeshedding, I present: The page body, as seen by a NoScript user: Web developers: Please, you can do better than this.

That's the spirit of pointless, offtopic shitting all over a thread. You can and should do better than this.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#169

Post by 9mit3t2m9h9a »

Ninn wrote: post #138
bunderbunder wrote: post #127

In the spirit of cranky HN bikeshedding, I present: The page body, as seen by a NoScript user: Web developers: Please, you can do better than this.

Please know that no one really cares. You must realise you cannot expect to consume our applications but only on your own terms. Theres no contract saying you should ONLY serve HTML on the web.

Last time when nobody cared about a broken nest of security holes in the center of the Web, a small minority had organised a campaign to annoy people with complaints.

I mean Mozilla's campaign asking users to send complaints to each and every webmaster writing IE5-only sites. It somewhat worked.

Re: VS Code can do that?

#170

Post by Amezarak »

allover wrote: post #164
JoshMnem wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, one should serve HTML on the web unless you're doing something that requires JavaScript. JS is a big security/privacy risk. At the moment, I keep JS and CSS off by default on my main browsing profile, overriding it with umatrix when a site requires it and it looks useful enough to bother.

In general, one should consider the audience of the content, not NoScript users, in this case. > JS is a big security/privacy risk. No, 3rd party JS (and 3rd party cookies, JS regardless) allow you to be tracked. And ad-blockers deal with that. Blocking 1st party JS is of tenuous benefit w.r.t security/privacy.

> Blocking 1st party JS is of tenuous benefit w.r.t security/privacy.

Blocking all JS lets me click on any link fearlessly.

Post reply on HN