41–50 of 79 posts
that is totally unsurprising, i would use javascript to build github too. why is this on the front page?
Because it used to work without JS, but more importantly because it used to work better without JS – stuff loaded more quickly and the overall experience felt snappier. Not sure if it is front page worthy but it is still sad.
I think GitHub being an SPA is largely fine, it has good reasons to be in many situations, what I object to is when a shopping site or, even worse, a content site requires JS to work. This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users.
A quiet reminder that sourcehut is pretty great, and loads fine in dillo .
Which is totally fine for personal projects, but Git(lab|hub) are modelled on the notion that you should want people to contribute to your code.
FD: I'm a happy paying customer of sourcehut: https://git.sr.ht/~dijit/
I think GitHub being an SPA is largely fine, it has good reasons to be in many situations, what I object to is when a shopping site or, even worse, a content site requires JS to work. This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users.
i liked seeing README immediately. I don't care that much for files list, source code. But README is the essence of what I'm looking for usually
I think GitHub being an SPA is largely fine, it has good reasons to be in many situations, what I object to is when a shopping site or, even worse, a content site requires JS to work. This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users.
No, it's not fine, there's absolutely no need whatsoever for Github to be an SPA. What functionality do you think can't be done ... in HTML 4.0 for that matter much less HTML5? Sure, a good editor inside the browser but then let that be a standalone, that has nothing to do with the repository viewer. (As an aside I hate the Jira UI for being the same.)
it's 2024. let's stop having this conversation
If that's your stance then; sure: it's no longer a conversation. It is then completely unacceptable to force people to run code on their machines. Thus JS should always be optional. Perhaps this is not the result you intended by attempting to shut down any opinions; but now we can't talk about it. So it's concluded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it used to work without JS, but more importantly because it used to work better without JS – stuff loaded more quickly and the overall experience felt snappier. Not sure if it is front page worthy but it is still sad.
Because they refactored into microservices.
Honest question and no pun intended: I don't understand people's desire to prevent JavaScript from being a language that runs in the browser. Could someone shed some light on this?
I didn't turn off JavaScript on my devices until I took a 2 month trip to East Africa and needed to do that to get any sane functionality, and since then have been a strong proponent for testing on slow devices and speeds for usability because that is the norm for a lot more of the world than we ever think about.