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

I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

markentier.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#41

Post by d3nj4l »

Dionakra wrote: post #25
muspimerol wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For ease of maintenance and portability I think markdown is really the king of formats for blog content. Are you writing the posts in HTML? Why are you intermittently using for paragraphs and to wrap other elements?

Yep, I am writing the posts in HTML. The reason to avoid Markdown (which I love) and other things is to avoid any kind of building tools. I tried to install Gatsby on a Windows machine and I had several errors. I wanted to remove any dependency on external software. I wanted it to be modifiable with just a text editor and nothing else. Regarding the use of is because the tag with the chosen CSS leaves too much space…

You can use Jekyll for a JS-less markdown to static site generator.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#42

Post by davidmurdoch »

ochronus wrote: post #4
asaaki wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. If you're okay with a non-node/js solution, use https://github.com/kornelski/cavif-rs - it does the job for me pretty well. For node it looks surprisingly disappointing right now, the only real candidates being the packages @saschazar/wasm-avif (v1.0.0) and avif (v0.0.1-alpha2) — I'll probably never understand the ecosystem and community, the format is out for some time and fully supported in the most widely…

Thanks for the tips - I'm tied to node at the moment - wasm-avif has serious issues with thready safety an memleaks :( tried it.

Sharp lib is veeeerrryyy close to AVIF support: https://github.com/lovell/sharp/issues/2289 (you can compile a version to use for yourself, it's just not production stable yet).

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#43

Post by forgotmypw17 »

gbrindisi wrote: post #14
chrismorgan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had to capitulate for google analytics. Ask yourself how much you actually need analytics. I found I seldom looked at it. I myself replaced Google Analytics with self-hosted Matomo for a while, but then I just dropped it altogether because I simply don’t need it. Now I do have server logs that I can look at, and from time to time I do (and they reveal things like Atom feeds consume the substantial majority of the…

I just want to know if what I write is being read and how is propagated/shared

access.log

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#44

Post by davidmurdoch »

> The only annoying part is still that the image dimensions are not reserved appropriately, even with present width and height attributes. So the layout can jump around if you scroll past the not yet loaded image. If you have an idea how to deal with that within picture groups, I love to hear about it.

See https://www.andyshora.com/css-image-container-padding-hack.h...

I used the trick on https://jessicakhope.com's blog-post pages. View the source on https://jessicakhope.com/blog/family-workcation-in-portland-..., for examples.

The site is static and is generated by hugo. The image container paddings are generated at compile time.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#45

Post by zelphirkalt »

dgb23 wrote: post #31
zelphirkalt wrote: post #20

Someone must have gotten the a hold of the credentials of the device, where I put my brain dumps and made it into a blog post. I wish more people did approach web development in this kind of minimalist most accessible and responsive way, that does not require me to trust all their scripts and simply lets me access a hypertext document to get the information I seek.

The OP mentions things like Nextjs, which I find odd. A well crafted site built with the help of Nextjs (and similar) works w/o JS just fine: The site becomes progressively enhanced through hydration, but if you disable JS altogether, you can still read and navigate the site. For sites with minimalist designs, straight forward data models and low to no interaction (like a blog or similar) I agree that any sort of JS…

Aha? That sounds interesting. Usually those "I'm gonna use a full blown framework, although nothing special is needed." websites appear in pure white over the whole screen, with nothing to be seen. Which is usually when I close the tab. Are you saying, that NextJS encourages a design, which keeps no script in mind? Is it its default to render a noscript tag or something? This would definitely raise it in my personal rating.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#46

Post by ruicaridade »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #45
dgb23 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP mentions things like Nextjs, which I find odd. A well crafted site built with the help of Nextjs (and similar) works w/o JS just fine: The site becomes progressively enhanced through hydration, but if you disable JS altogether, you can still read and navigate the site. For sites with minimalist designs, straight forward data models and low to no interaction (like a blog or similar) I agree that any sort of JS…

Aha? That sounds interesting. Usually those "I'm gonna use a full blown framework, although nothing special is needed." websites appear in pure white over the whole screen, with nothing to be seen. Which is usually when I close the tab. Are you saying, that NextJS encourages a design, which keeps no script in mind? Is it its default to render a noscript tag or something? This would definitely raise it in my personal…

Next has two different ways to deploy:

1. Next renders the React page server-side and sends it as html/css. Once everything is done loading on the client, it becomes a regular React page. Requires a server. 2. Next pre-renders your whole website with data fetched at build time, like Hugo or Jekyll. Drop it on a CDN and you're golden.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#47

Post by chrismorgan »

gbrindisi wrote: post #21
chrismorgan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but what will you change based on what you discover? That’s the essence of what tweetle_beetle is asking and why many end up deciding that they don’t actually need analytics—because they’re not going to change anything based on what they observe.

like it or not, analytics can give you actionable information to drive some seo improvements in how your content is displayed and consumed

Can, sure, at least once you have enough volume of content; but will you use it? Almost no one actually does for personal blogs and the likes.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#48

Post by zelphirkalt »

ruicaridade wrote: post #46
zelphirkalt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha? That sounds interesting. Usually those "I'm gonna use a full blown framework, although nothing special is needed." websites appear in pure white over the whole screen, with nothing to be seen. Which is usually when I close the tab. Are you saying, that NextJS encourages a design, which keeps no script in mind? Is it its default to render a noscript tag or something? This would definitely raise it in my personal…

Next has two different ways to deploy: 1. Next renders the React page server-side and sends it as html/css. Once everything is done loading on the client, it becomes a regular React page. Requires a server. 2. Next pre-renders your whole website with data fetched at build time, like Hugo or Jekyll. Drop it on a CDN and you're golden.

Is it able to somehow transform dynamic loading of content into expected clicking of links, upon which the server delivers another static HTML + CSS page? Or is this "prerendering" limited to already static parts of the website?

It would be great to have a web framework, which automatically transforms everything into links, which, when clicked, cause the server to deliver an updated HTML + CSS, which shows the same info, as one would have seen with a dynamic update using AJAX.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#49

Post by dgb23 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #45
dgb23 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP mentions things like Nextjs, which I find odd. A well crafted site built with the help of Nextjs (and similar) works w/o JS just fine: The site becomes progressively enhanced through hydration, but if you disable JS altogether, you can still read and navigate the site. For sites with minimalist designs, straight forward data models and low to no interaction (like a blog or similar) I agree that any sort of JS…

Aha? That sounds interesting. Usually those "I'm gonna use a full blown framework, although nothing special is needed." websites appear in pure white over the whole screen, with nothing to be seen. Which is usually when I close the tab. Are you saying, that NextJS encourages a design, which keeps no script in mind? Is it its default to render a noscript tag or something? This would definitely raise it in my personal…

To add to what ruicaridade said:

> Are you saying, that NextJS encourages a design, which keeps no script in mind?

It quasi enables it, a NextJS site has three rendering stages:

1. static at build time 2. server side at request time 3. dynamic in the browser

It leverages React hydration for 1-2 and client side React for 3.

If you avoid 3, or rather build your site with progressive enhancement in mind (`noscript` can help but is often not necessary) then this framework makes it very easy for you.

I think https://reactjs.org/ is built with Gatsby (a similar framework, but not as dev friendly in my opinion). And you can browse it just fine with JS off last time I checked.

Re: I wrote JavaScript to avoid JavaScript

#50

Post by temporallobe »

I do a lot of JavaScript, maintaining older and newer apps. I have been of the opinion for a decade that most apps and even static sites are way more JavaScript-heavy than they need to be and that we depend far too much on frameworks, so much so that even very good developers don’t know much actual HTML and CSS. Yeah I know it’s the old “too much abstraction” argument, but I strongly believe it. It’s a breath of fresh air when people write articles like this because it brings us down to earth. Now, I’m not saying going JS-free is appropriate for all cases or even most cases. Sometimes the customer has complex requirements or the project you’re brought in on uses JS at its core (Rails, React, Angular, any of the SPA frameworks). Heck, I’ve even written my own SPA framework because reasons. Point is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the “old fashioned” static page apps in many cases - using forms, letting the back-end handle business logic, not having to worry about routing, etc.
Post reply on HN