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

Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

eev.ee

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 237 posts

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#211

Post by toastal »

beaconstudios wrote: post #201
toastal wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or as developers we be good stewards towards the web and the feature isn't complete until it's tested to at least not completely bug and give an error message when a script or resource isn't loaded.

If you get to unilaterally make technical decisions in your company with complete disregard for return on investment, then be my guest - but I'd look for other jobs because companies that prioritise developers complaining over profit tend to go bankrupt. The rest of us don't want to be fired.

I'm not saying make it all work without JS. Provide a noscript tag and actually handle your error states. These are basic best practices. If you get fired for not swallowing errors, I don't know what to tell you.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#212

Post by toastal »

joe_guy wrote: post #193
toastal wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or as developers we be good stewards towards the web and the feature isn't complete until it's tested to at least not completely bug and give an error message when a script or resource isn't loaded.

You're not going to delete a dll or not install DirectX then get annoyed when the software fails.

I'm not familiar with Windows but I'm going to assume the OS will at least give you an error. A lot of websites are just blank and/or swallowing errors without giving feedback.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#213

Post by beaconstudios »

toastal wrote: post #211
beaconstudios wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get to unilaterally make technical decisions in your company with complete disregard for return on investment, then be my guest - but I'd look for other jobs because companies that prioritise developers complaining over profit tend to go bankrupt. The rest of us don't want to be fired.

I'm not saying make it all work without JS. Provide a noscript tag and actually handle your error states. These are basic best practices. If you get fired for not swallowing errors, I don't know what to tell you.

But that's not what the article is complaining about - they're complaining that most of the UI functionality doesn't work without JS. To make it do so would require a progressive enhancement approach, which is not going to sell well if the only benefit is an extra 0.1% audience reach.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#214

Post by toastal »

beaconstudios wrote: post #213
toastal wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying make it all work without JS. Provide a noscript tag and actually handle your error states. These are basic best practices. If you get fired for not swallowing errors, I don't know what to tell you.

But that's not what the article is complaining about - they're complaining that most of the UI functionality doesn't work without JS. To make it do so would require a progressive enhancement approach, which is not going to sell well if the only benefit is an extra 0.1% audience reach.

Then perhaps we're not at odds because full JS-disable support is often unreasonable. My gripe was that many of my own experiences using uMatrix with scripts disabled by default ('cause you never know what sort of modals and pop-ups and other junk random pages send you) and not getting even the slightest feedback on what went wrong. I'm aware that this is a minority setup, but throw a user a bone. I've been banned from signups because I failed a third-party CAPTCHA I never saw. I enable JS manually on almost every site once I get an error and it's vaguely trustworthy.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#215

Post by toastal »

rapind wrote: post #195
toastal wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whew, you need to try some Dhall then. Types, functions, imports all in a non-Turing-complete configuration language.

It sounds kind of funny to say “this should be in a config, not in code, but here’s a config language that lets you code your config”. Regardless, I don’t think Dhali was around at the time Quirks.cpp was created. Funny story, my first exposure to ruby was using it to write ant (or was it maven) config files (EJB nightmares) because the XML config sucked pretty bad (around Rails 1.0 era). It was far more concise and…

A lot of times 2 variables and a `map` function is all I wanted and the config would have been pleasant. Getting type errors in my editor and being able to extend record defaults was the cherry on top.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#216

Post by _the_inflator »

cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

That was a good read! Thanks for the links.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#217

Post by corobo »

eadmund wrote: post #114
corobo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then I dunno where they hang out cause it doesn't appear to be on HN anymore

I think there are a fair number of JavaScript devs who really don't appreciate being told that they are on the same ethical plane as, e.g. cigarette designers, which is pretty understandable even if one does think that JavaScript is basically cancer (a position I would not take myself: I think it's more akin to sugar: good or at least neutral in very small amounts). No-one wants to be told that the way he earns a liv…

Calling it a cancer is a bit much. I'm just wondering where all the progressive enhancement types went.

Also lol I've been Upton'd https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27771186

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#218

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

corobo wrote: post #11
alphabet9000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i care, plenty of other people care.

Well then I dunno where they hang out cause it doesn't appear to be on HN anymore

They kind of are hanging out on HN, given that a story in such a spirit is being upvoted into the front page once a week or two, but they also seem a bit bipolar in that they swing between wanting to use the internet ascetically and defending the "web is your new OS and TV and it's a good thing!" attitude because they do it for a living, and that 150k is a 150k after all.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#219

Post by zitterbewegung »

naikrovek wrote: post #184
cookiengineer wrote: post #131

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2] The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations. I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo. The problem with all t…

> quirks.cpp this is also why video card drivers are so huge; the fixes to games made at the driver level. this kind of thing happens a lot.

If a triple A video game comes out there is always a game ready driver that is released at the same time and date of release.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#220

Post by oversocialized »

wackget wrote: post #162

Finally. I am so happy someone else noticed how much of a garbage fire Twitter is when you limit (not even block ) JavaScript. I use uMatrix and a hardened Firefox profile so I notice pretty quickly if websites are poorly made. Spoiler: the vast majority are, and the big players like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. are absolutely the worst offenders. But Twitter is so frustrating because of exactly what the article's…

That's because nu-internet isn't meant for us. It is meant for the consuming masses. The iphone really did kill the free (as in freedom) internet.
Post reply on HN