331–340 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost as if we all have supercomputers in our pockets which could easily handle text and images of only web devs didn't shove 10MB of code in an interpreted language every time time we open a page!
yup. I marveled at a cray y-mp 4 back in the days. now I use one as my daily driver, compute power wise. mind. blown. come to think about it...
You use something some 200 to 2000 times more powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my confusion is why it's their requirements that need to get met, not say, the readers' requirements.
Imagine if you were told that you had to do all of your software development work in notepad, because for whatever reason that lead to better optimized code… would you be ok with that?
I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site. It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented. If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that r…
Costs nothing to host, but then you need to train every user, which demands time, will make productivity go down every time there's a new user. VS wordpress, which any copywriter or marketer already knows how to write on, or will learn in just a few minutes because creating a post there and clicking 'publish' is easy
I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site. It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented. If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that r…
I was surprised at how hard it was to find a designer who could make a simple html and css only website. Just having to dip my toe in this world for a good-looking but mostly non-functional website gave me all kinds of ick. Oh, https://sumar.io is a form handler for static websites available under the AGPL.
Marketing and copywriting people don't know any of those licenses. And I guess not ironically, first search result for me for AGPL was "Understanding the AGPL: The Most Misunderstood License". So this already makes it kind of a no-go. If I'm in a rush to add a form, I need a simple answer: can I use for business purposes and do I have to pay for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> editors still want WP, because this or that plugin So you are saying that you are still missing functionality
Nope, I'm saying they don't need this functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is the height of arrogance and user-hostility. The idea that they should accept a sub-par solution not of their choosing just for the developer's convenience is absurd.
I think you missed the point. It's not the developer's convenience. It's the readers. Each blog post is going to get written once, but read (hopefully) thousands of times. Why are we optimising the writing experience and not the reading experience?
The marketing folks and copywriters are being paid to post, and they have a manager and boss to report to - which can fire them.
I guess it's very much about convenience and ease of use to people writing the posts
> a big frontend component that loads as a Single Page Application and then performs navigation by requesting the content in JSON form, which then gets "rehydrated" client-side. Huh? Either the page gets rendered server-side and (possibly) hydrated client-side, or it gets rendered client-side (i.e. a classic SPA) but then there is no hydration.
the "hydrated" means that external objects (JSON) are added to the running SPA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The site could be 5 simple handwritten HTML files, one with a sprinkling of JS inline in it, plus 2 small Perl CGI scripts. And it would work perfectly for 25 years and counting. Or it could be something in between, because it’s convenient to do so. In my case, I couldn’t care less of resumes and offers, but still I want something more ergonomic than spitting out htmls from templates in js/python. So my sites are a m…
Nice stack, but are you really using it to make complicated enough sites that TypeScript is much benefit? Drop that build step baby.
But in general, yes, ts is much benefit. I use shared typings for cross-end calls/returns, mithril supports full component typing which is useful, the whole devtime becomes more lively.
I'd agree at webpack 4 "zero" "conf" times, but rejecting ts now returns nothing.
I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site. It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented. If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that r…
Why does it require those things? There's nothing inherent to static sites that demands either. There's also nothing inherent to either static sites or WordPress that keeps you from providing a user-facing post-writing and -editing UI that looks the same as WordPress's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the "hydrated" means that external objects (JSON) are added to the running SPA.
Is this a common definition of "hydration" and I've missed it all these years? For me that "adding to the running SPA" part is called rendering.