4 ms·
> the dependency on PHP can turn many developers away from using it Well, that's going to be the same no matter which technology you choose. The dependency on
by kijin 11y ago
> the dependency on PHP can turn many developers away from using it
Well, that's going to be the same no matter which technology you choose. The dependency on ReactJS is also going to turn many developers away from your proposed changes.
Why turn away? Here's a possible reason: Instead of generating perfectly valid and semantic markup that can be understood by all clients from Lynx to Chrome as well as search engines, you want to turn every blog into a single-page "webapp" where the markup only contains some empty placeholders and all content is rendered separately by a hefty JavaScript framework.
No, thank you.
One thing I'm absolutely flabbergasted about is that we as a community have spent the last 10 years trying to get everyone to serve valid semantic markup, only to throw it all away. This tastes just as vile as using tables everywhere.
There's a time and place where JavaScript MVC frameworks make sense. A blog ain't one of them. Even Medium is barely tolerable nowadays -- I am often forced to use the Reader View in Firefox to get rid of all the junk that Medium throws into every blog post.
Please, please keep that junk to yourself. Don't pollute my precious WordPress with it.
- Hytosys 11y ago>One thing I'm absolutely flabbergasted about is that we as a community have spent the last 10 years trying to get everyone to serve valid semantic markup, only to throw it all away. This tastes just as vile as using tables everywhere. Using a DOM manipulation engine does not disqualify the developer from producing perfectly semantic markup.
- kijin 11y agoSure, but that beautiful markup only exists inside the Developer Tools of modern browsers, and only thanks to several megabytes of scripts that waste my time, data, and battery. Good luck loading that page with whatever the most popular browser is in 2040, or on archive.org if the original website has long disappeared.
- Hytosys 11y agoYou believe that HTML won't be deprecated by 2040, but JS will? You also believe archive.org won't make an effort to store JS files within that timeframe? The reality is that the modern web depends on JS, and the argument of deprecation won't change that anytime soon. We're moving forward, not backward. On a technical note, there is quite some effort in rendering React/Angular apps on the server in case it's serving an outdated browser. Edit: just realized that of course storing JS files isn't the solution to archive.org's challenge, it's storing server responses.
- kijin 11y agoJS is a lot more fragile than HTML. It won't be difficult to extract useful information from a static HTML document 25 years from now, even if it doesn't render correctly. Actually, we do that already with static HTML documents written 20-25 years ago. But there's no guarantee that a script with lots of moving parts written today will run without errors on a future browser, especially if it stopped being maintained sometime in the middle. Why do we need so many moving parts to display a goddamn blog post? It's a mostly static document, after all. There's no reason it shouldn't be readable with NoScript on, or even in a terminal-based browser like lynx, with a very small number of HTTP requests. The reality is that only some parts of the modern web depends on JS. Hiring five people to change a lightbulb is not "moving forward", it's just wasteful.
- rimantas 11y agoweb is not moving forward. It moves sideways at best, and runs in circles at worst.