4 ms·
I read all these instructions he gives on making an "efficient" app and just wonder if everyone wouldn't be better off with less JavaScript. I have never used a
by donatj 11y ago
I read all these instructions he gives on making an "efficient" app and just wonder if everyone wouldn't be better off with less JavaScript. I have never used a JavaScript app I would call "better" than a static site. 2-4mb of Js? You've gotta be kidding me. There's no any that's a better experience than 10-20 50kb HTML requests for anyone. You're just working way to hard. Very very few apps benefit from that kind of interactivity. The form driven majority certainly do not.
- evook 11y agofefe[0] commented on his rant very precise "Folks, if you continue to let your pile of shit grow, then you may not point your fingers at google if the shit hits the fan. It's your pile of shit, not chromes"[analogous translation] [0]https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a80874c9 https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a80874c9
- mbrock 11y agoThat's a surprising comment to read as someone's who's immersed in making web apps in JavaScript that work great offline and synchronize data when possible. For me, sites that require network roundtrips for every state change are often near unusable. Instead, with JavaScript and AppCache/ServiceWorker, I can make web-delivered programs with instant response times, intelligent auto-updating, and so on. 2 MB of application code isn't too bad when you can download it once on WiFi and then never need to touch the network again.
- hrktb 11y agoWould you see Discuss or Gmail or google docs implemented as a static site ? As I understand it, we are talking about sites that behave more like an actual application, and not a wikipedia like "let's read one page after the other" type of experience.