71–80 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it. Sure, dude, ignore anyone without a machine that can run MBs of JS within a reasonable time.
This is a question about JS vs no JS, not about optimizations of JS.
> For me it’s a matter of elegance and simplicity over unnecessary complexity. Simplicity is having one place where the DOM is created and managed, and optimizing for the 99% use case. Complexity is splitting up DOM rendering over two networked systems for servicing a 1% use case. Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it.
> For me it’s a matter of elegance and simplicity over unnecessary complexity. Simplicity is having one place where the DOM is created and managed, and optimizing for the 99% use case. Complexity is splitting up DOM rendering over two networked systems for servicing a 1% use case. Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it.
Naw, I will keep running noscript and blocking script by default. If your site doesn't work, I don't care, I will go to a different one. I may be the minority now, and while there is some great use of js out there; most of it is bloated, slow, insecure, and often privacy destroying.
The idea of browsers sending data that the user has explicitly elected to send (in addition to, if we're being pedantic, that the server put there in the first place) is very compelling in this day and age - only problem being that in order for that to have any meaningful impact on web security in the general case, you'd have to more or less universally deprecate JS support, which would set the web in a very different direction indeed.
> For me it’s a matter of elegance and simplicity over unnecessary complexity. Simplicity is having one place where the DOM is created and managed, and optimizing for the 99% use case. Complexity is splitting up DOM rendering over two networked systems for servicing a 1% use case. Browsers are JS runtimes now. Get over it.
Naw, I will keep running noscript and blocking script by default. If your site doesn't work, I don't care, I will go to a different one. I may be the minority now, and while there is some great use of js out there; most of it is bloated, slow, insecure, and often privacy destroying.
It is not a question about JavaScript or not. It is a question about well developed site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Except you need to do Ajax and fetch doesn't cut it. So new lib. And manipulate the dom with something better then the browser API or you loose your mind. So new lib. Then normalize browser events. Oh wait, you can do that manually. But you are writing a new lib. Eventually the code will grow to be the size of jQuery anyway. Only not as well tested, documented and cached.
> Yeah. Except you need to do Ajax and fetch doesn't cut it. So new lib. Why doesn't fetch and its polyfill cut it?
And even then. You need to encode params manually.
And of course no middleware, so for special decoding or repeating headers, you end up writting a wrapper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, most websites are still websites, and one of the biggest problem on the web is the plague of people who think their website should be an application instead. Actual web applications, like e.g. office suites, map applications, ect. are obviously extempt from "should work fine without JS" rule.
Are you really trying to say there's no argument to be made that SPA + prerendering is a design pattern with advantages over flat html, even for static content? Obviously there are disadvantages as well, but it's a tradeoff, and if executed correctly it's one that, as fewer people turn off JS and browsers become better at running web apps, is increasingly becoming worth the complexity for certain use cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, most websites are still websites, and one of the biggest problem on the web is the plague of people who think their website should be an application instead. Actual web applications, like e.g. office suites, map applications, ect. are obviously extempt from "should work fine without JS" rule.
Are you really trying to say there's no argument to be made that SPA + prerendering is a design pattern with advantages over flat html, even for static content? Obviously there are disadvantages as well, but it's a tradeoff, and if executed correctly it's one that, as fewer people turn off JS and browsers become better at running web apps, is increasingly becoming worth the complexity for certain use cases.
For me it's about how user-hostile those decisions are. I can understand SPA-s when e.g. the service would be infeasible if all the processing was done server-side. But more often than not, it's just laziness. The devs can deploy a sleek-looking SPA in 5 minutes with their JS toolchain, forever dooming users to download tons of pointless JS that adds nothing valuable to their experience. But who cares, today's zeitgeist is "privatize the profits, socialize the costs".
Think of all those sites with articles and blog posts that blank out if you have JS disabled. There's no reasonable argument to be made that they should be SPA. That's just a case of user-hostile laziness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a question about JS vs no JS, not about optimizations of JS.
That is fair, but when was the last time when a js only site was running on optimized JS?
NoScript plugin keeps JS off by default and you can turn it on as needed or whitelist certain sites. Highly recommended
Dunno how well it will work after Mozilla drops support for XUL extensions...
Tested and working, for a while now.
>Verdict: Cartography catastrophe. As much as I hate JavaScript, Google Maps gets a pass. I'm pretty sure the code behind it is thoroughly tested. We can just suck it up and turn JavaScript on for one of the most useful tools from the internet -- how hard is it to find something that whitelists domains to run JS anyway?
It also had a habit of freezing an older (core2) laptop I was still using completely (with Firefox). Not just the browser, the whole OS. Had to power cycle. From time to time I'd forget and go back to Google maps were the cycle would repeat.
Why was I still using a core2? Because it worked fine for almost everything else. Got a better second laptop and no more issues but still... there wasn't anything wrong with the first.