Live data from Hacker News

Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

eev.ee

231–237 of 237 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about rich text editors in webmail?

HTML mail is a mess that's impossible to get right; better to avoid it. Misleading users with a rich-text editor that looks like a word processor is bad because it'll pretty much never look as intended in anything but the same HTML editor that created it originally.

My experience has been the opposite at least for things like font size, bold/italic. I’m curious to hear what problems you’ve encountered.

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

#232
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comments on the blog are managed by Disqus. If he wanted to do them without JS, he'd need to build a commenting system all by himself - and that's almost impossible nowadays because of the spam issues. Everything else on the site seems to uphold to his principles.

Just hold the comments for moderation?

You’d spend more time moderating comments than writing posts. Seriously.

Any time I tried doing that, 99.9% of comments were spam. Seriously.

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comments on the blog are managed by Disqus. If he wanted to do them without JS, he'd need to build a commenting system all by himself - and that's almost impossible nowadays because of the spam issues. Everything else on the site seems to uphold to his principles.

She

Thanks, I missed that.

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

#234
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just hold the comments for moderation?

You’d spend more time moderating comments than writing posts. Seriously. Any time I tried doing that, 99.9% of comments were spam. Seriously.

99% of my email is spam too and the filter there isn't even all that sensible.

[ ] i am not a robot

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

#235

I am not sure what Javascript buys you, but from a point of view of doing a server-side app and having to do the frontend... uh, it adds a lot of complexity. I am taking a look into htmx. It looks way closer to what html is and it is more than enough for my purpose at least.

Htmx is what I will use in my next website. More than enough for me as well and the learning curve seems pretty low compared to alternatives.

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

#236

I am not sure what Javascript buys you, but from a point of view of doing a server-side app and having to do the frontend... uh, it adds a lot of complexity. I am taking a look into htmx. It looks way closer to what html is and it is more than enough for my purpose at least.

> I am not sure what Javascript buys you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

lol. I learnt something new today. Thanks for that!

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site here seems to have roughly 8kB of scripts, about 250kB for everything. I'd say that's more impressive than loading the counterpart of multiple novels for mostly the same functionality.

Both websites could easily be done without JavaScript. I have built a blog and a site similar (without voting) to this using PHP/HTML/CSS when I was young.

HN works nicely without JS. With JS enabled it doesn't need to reload the page when you vote, so it's not necessary but still useful.

The problem are most other sites that often don't even load or show any content without JS support, or break in many creative ways. Although for weirdness you only need to disable custom fonts in the browser, and suddenly Reddit's notification button shows the Paypal logo and many websites have random chinese symbols scattered around the UI. And Google Translate looks like you need a translator to use it.

Post reply on HN