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

Plain Vanilla Web

plainvanillaweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 715 posts

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#681

Post by firemelt »

bob1029 wrote: post #291

I've transcended the vanilla/framework arguments in favor of "do we even need a website for this?". I've discovered that when you start getting really cynical about the actual need for a web application - especially in B2B SaaS - you may become surprised at how far you can take the business without touching a browser. A vast majority of the hours I've spent building web sites & applications has been devoted to admini…

>A vast majority of the hours I've spent building web sites & applications has been devoted to administrative-style UI/UX wherein we are ultimately giving the admin a way to mutate fields in a database somewhere such that the application behaves to the customer's expectations.

that is, letting your user to blindly and impulsively following what they want is a mistake.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#683

Post by firemelt »

NoSalt wrote: post #589

I know I am in the VAST minority, or perhaps the only one, but I cannot stand frameworks. Sure, there may be a lot of power in them, but there is also a lot of bloat and complexity. IMHO, this "power" can easily be achieved with libraries instead of an IOC framework. After you learn a, typically terse and confusing, framework language, you have to know that framework language along with the base language (Java, C#, J…

some people make framework to help themselves when working.

some doesn't even want to make a framework, the habit and the pattern just repeated intensely and the framework just naturally created.

the way it helps someone maybe tangled you that is normal.

instead hating it, just try to understand why the framework do certain things in certain way.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#686

Post by vaylian »

int_19h wrote: post #641
vaylian wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about self-signed certificates? That's still better than plain HTTP.

What benefits does a self-signed certificate give over plain HTTP? They don't prevent MITM injection, which is the thing you raised in other thread.

The visitor can import the self-signed certificate, so that it becomes trusted and after that MITM won't be possible without certificate errors.

However, this won't help if the certificate is already forged the first time the visitor connects to the site.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#688

Post by j45 »

jfengel wrote: post #562
bob1029 wrote: post #291

I've transcended the vanilla/framework arguments in favor of "do we even need a website for this?". I've discovered that when you start getting really cynical about the actual need for a web application - especially in B2B SaaS - you may become surprised at how far you can take the business without touching a browser. A vast majority of the hours I've spent building web sites & applications has been devoted to admini…

I've found that "send me a spreadsheet and I'll upload it" isn't a great user experience. It's just a big pile of cells, with no documentation (which they wouldn't read anyway).There are a billion things they can do wrong, and they get no feedback on it until I email it to them. They don't know what the options are for any field, and it's easy to enter a nonstandard value. A typo in a header row can lead to data loss…

Spreadsheets are often where so much software starts.

I'm not an instant fan of it, but it is one way for someone to lay out their thinking about how to solve something that works.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#689

Post by phito »

Aurornis wrote: post #403
bob1029 wrote: post #291

I've transcended the vanilla/framework arguments in favor of "do we even need a website for this?". I've discovered that when you start getting really cynical about the actual need for a web application - especially in B2B SaaS - you may become surprised at how far you can take the business without touching a browser. A vast majority of the hours I've spent building web sites & applications has been devoted to admini…

> In many situations, it is clearly 100x faster/easier/less bullshit to send the business a template of the configuration (Excel files) and then load+merge their results directly into the same SQL tables. > Email and flat files are far more flexible than any web solution. Some times I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when I read HN lately. Suggesting that we e-mail requests around and have a person on the other end m…

> Some times I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when I read HN lately

Often it just reads like contrarianism for the sake or it

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#690

Post by DrScientist »

int_19h wrote: post #575
DrScientist wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really comparing 2 tier to three tier here? ( With the web effectively 3 tier by default ). That old VB code that queried the database directly wouldn't work well over a non-local network. ie there is a bit of apples and oranges comparison here.

You do have a point, but then again, think about how many corpnet apps are web apps these days, even though the network is local.

Sure.

You also might not need any access control, network traffic security, cross platform deployment, instant install, evergreen updating, trivial UI integration ( links ) etc etc.

If you really want something simple you could use Excel, Access or Filemaker as a front end.

I agree life has got more complex - and in some cases unnecessarily so - case in point it's becoming increasingly hard to write web apps without SSL - even if you don't need it.

Post reply on HN