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

RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

phabricator.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 293 posts

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#161

Post by rk06 »

jeswin wrote: post #9

I looked at Vue.js and came away with the impression that it requires me to learn a lot of framework-specific implementation details. For instance, a list requires that you know the v-for directive, while in React it's just JavaScript's Array::map(). Couldn't see the value there.

do you want to see the value? if so, here it is:

By itself, there is no inherent value in either v-for or Array::map(). However, these choices do not exist in a vacuum, they are other decisions in place, which do provide significant value:

- React, allows full power of js when writing template. and easy to express and decompose components into functions. while Vue does not allow the fine-grained in template unless you go into Vue's JSX) - Vue, via template-based approach, enables Developers to deploy apps without a build step, while React forces devs to add a build step(and a compelx one at that) to pipeline

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#162

Post by ddevault »

azangru wrote: post #152
ddevault wrote: post #128

This thread reads to me like the engineers went into it already knowing they wanted Vue.js, and retroactively doing the necessary mental gymnastics to come up with a rationale. A better justification would have started with "these are our pain points, and this is our evaluation of how these options address our problems." Instead, it's full of weird things like this: >Better support for usage without Webpack/Babel/fro…

> A lot of new technology doesn't work in older browsers But given that, how do we move forward? We shouldn't be stuck in the past forever. We shouldn't probably even be stuck in 2013, when IE11 was released. If their site requires heavy client-side code, and if they want to build it in a fast and reliable way, they have almost no other choice but to think of frameworks.

Wikipedia is just hyperlinked documents. The WWW has been suited for this from the start. Not everything needs to be new and shiny forever.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#163

Post by vorpalhex »

tantalor wrote: post #140
belval wrote: post #133

I'm not a frontend dev, in fact I know little about the current "cool" JS framework. That being said, I donate to Wikipedia/Wikimedia every year and I will reconsider if this goes through. This is exactly the kind of bloat that no one needs. The Wikimedia sites should be seen as a public library where accessibility is the most important thing. Creating a web app with apparently no measurably good impact is pure idioc…

Page Previews is a great example of leveraging "web app" that solves many problems at once: - quickly inform on a topic without clicking through (lower latency) - increase scanability (hence readability) - decrease expensive whole page loads - eliminate need to open many tabs https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews

Page Previews, specifically Hovercards can be implemented in a very simple way with plain JS [^1] and is clearly an enhancement - everything works just fine if hovercards don't load.

But most features on Wikipedia aren't like that, and would be really hurt if you had to a JS bundle or otherwise deal with the usual bloated webapp nonsense. Wikipedia primarily needs to load quickly and be semantic with preferably simple infrastructure to help their budget.

[^1]: See Gwern.net for an example of an easy pure JS hovercard - https://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#164

Post by jeroenhd »

joshwcomeau wrote: post #129
jeroenhd wrote: post #87

What does this mean for Wikimedia? Will they extend file uploaders and such with some fancier animations and code or will Wikimedia turn into another one of these God-awful Javascript applications running an HTML renderer inside the browser's HTML renderer? Don't get me wrong, Javascript web applications have their place, but Wikimedia is a website and not a web application. Will Vue and React work on 2G cell phones…

A lot of the questions you're rhetorically asking are answered in the RFC you're commenting on. Specifically, they had real problems with their current system, which they documented here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225453 . Then they explored the available options in the ecosystem and came up with the one they thought would best fit their needs. If you're gonna be critical, at least take the time to understan…

I understand them wanting to rewrite their old javascript code. After all, in the frontend world, the toolset currently used is ancient.

However, almost all of my experience with any Javascript framework describing itself as "modern" is a white page with no content of {{ placeholder }}a everywhere text should be.

Several comments on the RFC already seem to state the intention to slowly change Wikimedia into a more "interactive" experience. What I fear is that a framework such as Vue will make it _too_ easy to make everything flashy and modern and suddenly you end up with another SPA where a website should be.

The RFC talks about this shortly and mentions server side rendering but not much about what should be rendered server side and what shouldn't. The overview of problems seems more like a lack of structure than a need for a heavy JS library.

I am very cautious of anyone claiming they need JS for a web page. Applications such as the editors and turning into javascript programs is not something I worry about, but several annoyances new Wikipedia features have already brought me (especially on mobile) make me cautious of any suggestion to add even more javascript.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#165

Post by vorpalhex »

k__ wrote: post #99
pmarin wrote: post #51

Most of Wikipedia works perfectly without Javascript I hope it will continue to do so.

Modern JavaScript runs on the server just fine, they will probably use server side rendering and build time rendering.

Server side rendering is slow and expensive. Wikipedia needs to be fast for all of it's users, and needs to be very cost centric.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#166

Post by untog »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #158

> The need to evolve our platform is very evident when it comes to how we design, develop, and deliver experiences to users in the browser. > Requirements: > The framework allows UI elements to be defined in a declarative way > UI elements created within the framework are reactive (update automatically in response to changes in data or user input) by default > The framework is open-source, widely used, and has a thri…

To be blunt, this is an extremely common thing in web development and it makes me very sad. But whenever I raise it I’m rebuffed with the vague argument that “developer productivity = more features = better user experience”. Which sounds great in theory but a crappy experience is a crappy experience no matter how many features you put on top.

Go look at the lighthouse scores for pages that use React + Redux + whatever + blah blah and tell me the user experience isn’t sub par. Especially for an organisation like MediaWiki page load time is absolutely critical. I really hope they are sensible enough to choose something lightweight.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#167

Post by rk06 »

maps7 wrote: post #72

Isn't Vue 3 vastly different to Vue 1 and 2? Also why not Svelte?

It is not. The devs initially wanted to make some drastic changes. But Community feedback was very vocal and very negative. Since their main source of income is the community(not FAANG), they reverted their stance

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#168

Post by untog »

nwsm wrote: post #139
jeroenhd wrote: post #87

What does this mean for Wikimedia? Will they extend file uploaders and such with some fancier animations and code or will Wikimedia turn into another one of these God-awful Javascript applications running an HTML renderer inside the browser's HTML renderer? Don't get me wrong, Javascript web applications have their place, but Wikimedia is a website and not a web application. Will Vue and React work on 2G cell phones…

>Will Vue and React work on 2G cell phones running super basic browsers? Yes >Will screen readers support all elements created by the Javascript framework? Yes

React won’t work well on 2G cell phones with slow CPUs. It’s a giant library both to download and parse and most of it is entirely unnecessary.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#169

Post by EvanYou »

Team lead of Vue.js here. Clarifying a few points being raised in this thread:

- This does not mean Wikipedia is becoming an SPA. One of the reasons they picked Vue is because Vue can be used to progressively enhance a statically rendered page (just like jQuery, but with a declarative development paradigm), and it allows you to do so without a build step (while keeping the going-full-build-step option open).

- Wikimedia is not just Wikipedia. There are many other use cases across the Foundation where heavy interactivity is needed. Even within Wikipedia, there are cases like the editor / edit mode which can be considered non-trivial JavaScript applications.

- Adopting a new framework !== More JavaScript. Wikimedia already has an in-house framework which has become outdated and difficult to maintain. Adopting Vue allows the team to implement the same features with less code. It will shave off instead of adding to the bloat.

Re: RFC: Adopt a modern JavaScript framework for use with MediaWiki

#170

Post by Richicoder »

oleskiewicz wrote: post #98

I have been donating to Wikimedia for years, but have sent an email to let them know that I will stop the day Wikipedia becomes inaccessible without JavaScript. Wikipedia is a unique project because of how reliable it is -- in both its merit and its tech. It would be sad to see it go.

The intent of this RFC is to improve the places where JavaScript is already used like management tools and editing.
Post reply on HN