4 ms·

I feel like I'm in a bizarro world reading this "interview"... they're just describing web sites before "web 2.0" (around when Google Maps, Prototype, jQuery et

I feel like I'm in a bizarro world reading this "interview"... they're just describing web sites before "web 2.0" (around when Google Maps, Prototype, jQuery etc. came along), but talking about it as if it's a new thing. Maybe I'm missing the joke, except none of the comments here on HN seem to give any indication that anyone is aware that you can build websites without javascript (and in fact that's how most websites were built, and some still are). Everyone's talking like "in the beginning, there was javascript... but now we have these new things called HTML and CSS which let you finally get away from it!"

tyingq 10y ago
Felt the same way. I suppose the article could have cited recent changes in CSS that allow you to eliminate pieces of javascript, but that didn't seem to be the point.
underwater 10y ago
The article is specifically talking about web apps, not web sites. This usually assumes interactivity based on user interaction, which JavaScript certainly makes easier. I don't know the specifics of the web app in question. But from the interview it sounds like a case of replacing fixation on one tool with another. For example she describes server generated HTML as a "pristine state." No, JavaScript shouldn't be used for everything. But sometimes it is better than trying to abuse other technologies to do things they shouldn't do.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  The "basic HTML" version of GMail still exists, it barely uses Javascript[1]. That counts as a webapp, right? That's how email "apps" worked on the internet for a decade before the one-page-app became feasible and popular. It looks like crap by current standards, but it works just fine. I wouldn't call its scriptlessness an "abuse" by any means- that's just how it used to be done. [1] there's a little bit that handles time zones, I think, but that's it... oh, and autocomplete and some alerts to catch you navigating away from an unsaved draft, that sort of thing.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    There's also a framebuster, and onclick handlers for the search button.
roywiggins 10y ago
I had the same thought. "Oh, we're rediscovering forms and iframes then?" Code like it's 1999! Not that that is a bad thing, but it is kind of funny to see.

tyingq 10y ago

Felt the same way. I suppose the article could have cited recent changes in CSS that allow you to eliminate pieces of javascript, but that didn't seem to be the point.

underwater 10y ago

The article is specifically talking about web apps, not web sites. This usually assumes interactivity based on user interaction, which JavaScript certainly makes easier. I don't know the specifics of the web app in question. But from the interview it sounds like a case of replacing fixation on one tool with another. For example she describes server generated HTML as a "pristine state." No, JavaScript shouldn't be used for everything. But sometimes it is better than trying to abuse other technologies to do things they shouldn't do.

roywiggins 10y ago
The "basic HTML" version of GMail still exists, it barely uses Javascript[1]. That counts as a webapp, right? That's how email "apps" worked on the internet for a decade before the one-page-app became feasible and popular. It looks like crap by current standards, but it works just fine. I wouldn't call its scriptlessness an "abuse" by any means- that's just how it used to be done. [1] there's a little bit that handles time zones, I think, but that's it... oh, and autocomplete and some alerts to catch you navigating away from an unsaved draft, that sort of thing.
- tyingq 10y ago
  There's also a framebuster, and onclick handlers for the search button.

roywiggins 10y ago

I had the same thought. "Oh, we're rediscovering forms and iframes then?" Code like it's 1999! Not that that is a bad thing, but it is kind of funny to see.