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

Show HN: Whosfiring

whosfiring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 187 posts

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#71

Post by romanovcode »

mibbiting wrote: post #66
tokenizerrr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all…

This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices. It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.

While I totally agree about this site, it's stupid to disregard JS as a whole. Imagine websites like FB without JS - it would be horrible.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#73

Post by p4bl0 »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #65
codedokode wrote: post #41

Sorry, but I am going to comment on a technical implementation rather than the content of a site. The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. Probably it is because the developers were too busy learning trendy JS frameworks and do not know about HTML and server side page generation (in PHP this could be done m…

> The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all…

This point of view forgets the fact that loading 1MB of JS instead of 10KB of HTML is actually a bad thing. It consumes bandwidth and energy, and thus has an effect on the environment, for instance.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#74

Post by beagle3 »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #65
codedokode wrote: post #41

Sorry, but I am going to comment on a technical implementation rather than the content of a site. The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. Probably it is because the developers were too busy learning trendy JS frameworks and do not know about HTML and server side page generation (in PHP this could be done m…

> The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all…

No, it' because whoever made the site is ignoring the age-old simple practice of showing something (even the text "This website requires javascript") even if not all resources have loaded.

It is entirely unlike the examples you gave. Especially because his browser does show ~99% of the internet properly (with various degrees of functionality, but still something does come up), and that there spiders, proxies, screenreaders, and other useful software which will also see nothing on this page.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#75

Post by ddorian43 »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #69
mibbiting wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices. It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.

Perhaps we should be going back to writing websites in assembly.

See http://webassembly.org/ . While not raw assembly, we have to because of the js nonsense. This will ofcourse also increase the jsnonsense, cause now everything will be more efficient so we can put alot more crap.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#76

Post by beagle3 »

romanovcode wrote: post #71
mibbiting wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices. It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.

While I totally agree about this site, it's stupid to disregard JS as a whole. Imagine websites like FB without JS - it would be horrible.

You don't have to imagine, you can try: https://mbasic.facebook.com/ - a lot of people prefer it to the standard monstrosity.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#77

Post by tokenizerrr »

p4bl0 wrote: post #73
tokenizerrr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all…

This point of view forgets the fact that loading 1MB of JS instead of 10KB of HTML is actually a bad thing. It consumes bandwidth and energy, and thus has an effect on the environment, for instance.

I think the pointless act of watching cat videos and pornography has a much more significant effect on the environment. Driving cars, too. By that reasoning, these things must be really evil.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#78

Post by benkarst »

chunkyslink wrote: post #58
benkarst wrote: post #54

A better version can be created in 5 minutes with Thymble: https://github.com/bkarst/thymble . Clever idea though.

Have you got a demo working of this? What specifically were your reasons for using rails for it?

The working demo is linked on the github (http://www.thymble.org/).

I have several years experience using Rails so that would be my primary reason. Rails 5 has the ability to use Actioncable (a framework for handling websockets) which would be useful for notifications and chat.

Re: Show HN: Whosfiring

#80

Post by p4bl0 »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #77
p4bl0 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point of view forgets the fact that loading 1MB of JS instead of 10KB of HTML is actually a bad thing. It consumes bandwidth and energy, and thus has an effect on the environment, for instance.

I think the pointless act of watching cat videos and pornography has a much more significant effect on the environment. Driving cars, too. By that reasoning, these things must be really evil.

Of course, but the comparison is a bit unfair. If you need a car to go to your workplace you can't really do otherwise. Here it is mostly trivial to make a better choice, and webpage loading and rendering would be faster, it only has advantages.
Post reply on HN