71–80 of 313 posts
This is where the article started going wrong. I don't care about the web -- it's a tool for me to do my job. I use the web because it's a much better alternative to shipping a Swing app. I don't care what the web is "about" and neither do my clients.
Also I do think it's funny the JAM stack he's referencing is just the jQuery stack of 5-10 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt I'll ever voluntarily use one of those frameworks for web dev. > I do, however, like this thing called, Svelte. Svelte is just another one of “those frameworks”, except with a vastly smaller community: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=svelte%20i...
It's better than everything else because people have never heard of it. When did software engineers become hipsters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a lot of web devs are either stuck chasing novelty or constantly trying to bet on the next big thing. For example, what happened to CoffeeScript? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0hjc5m0&ge... What happened to Ember? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0s8...
Coffeescript was 'replaced' by ECMAScript 2015. Ember is fine but it's not the end of the line - it's been superseded' in most scenarios by React and Vue.js because those are generally better tools. JS technology changes quickly not for its own sake, but because there are still discoveries to be made about how to improve both syntax and how we think about code. I'm sure the pace will taper off sooner or later, until…
A site like YouTube doesn't need to work with old stuff like Netscape or IE but if your site primarily focuses on text there's next to no reason there should be Javascript on your site. Sites like danluu's[0] and Michael Norman Williams'[1] may not look the best but they just work.
My website: https://www.instantfloppy.net/ (though admittedly I don't spend as much time on it as I should)
[0]: https://danluu.com/
Wouldn't do it any other way. I dipped out of web dev in 2015 to run an ecommerce project. I stopped tracking all the latest js framework news. I settled on a barebones CSS rule set. I stopped choosing SPAs as the starting point for mvp ideas. I shelved Wordpress and moved some content sites over to Netlify and just recently started using a nifty desktop ssr cms instead of Hugo, Gatsby, etc. I was regressing to the e…
> I doubt I'll ever voluntarily use one of those frameworks for web dev. > I do, however, like this thing called, Svelte. Svelte is just another one of “those frameworks”, except with a vastly smaller community: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=svelte%20i...
Hell, I still write the HTML and push it to Github where Github Pages and Cloudflare put it up on the Web for me. I've never seen any reason to use Markup when I can just Mark my text Up in HTML pretty simply. If you write a site correctly (a site, not a webapp) it'll render in anything from the original Netscape to the Wii Browser (tested working with my site), Internet Explorer 8 (working), Links2 (working), and th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Gmail showed us that web 'apps' are useful. And we really have come full circle. Gmail performance, at least on Firefox, is awful.
Whether or not this is true, when Gmail came out, it was WAY better (including faster) than everything that it competed with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow everyone I know is happy with GMail and find a full-featured email client incomprehensible. I can't stand GMail's slow UI.
I don’t understand how anybody can like gmail’s interface. It’s so convoluted and unintuitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Gmail showed us that web 'apps' are useful. Gmail is terrible. It's slow and most people prefer the static html version.
> It's slow and most people prefer the static html version. The only people I've ever heard talk about the static html version are a few HNers. I'd wager 99% of people don't care, don't mind their email client's first load being slow (they just keep it open in a tab anyways), and don't even know about the static html version.
Are you claiming that because people are ignorant of an option that is clearly better for them, the option is redundant? So if people don't care about something, it's not better by definition of that fact?