4 ms·

There was never a time in the modern web era when JavaScript wasn't widely used. You'd have to go way back pre-2000 to find a time when popular websites didn't

There was never a time in the modern web era when JavaScript wasn't widely used. You'd have to go way back pre-2000 to find a time when popular websites didn't use JS at all. The Cambrian explosion of 'Web 2.0' wouldn't have happened without JavaScript and we wouldn't be where we are - doing everything on the server sucked big time, I do not want to go back to party like it's 1996. To use Gmail, the poster boy of Web 2.0, as an example of why sites don't need to use JavaScript is bizarre. It destroyed other webmail sites because it used JS to give users a real GUI mail client on the web - the HTML backup works, but if that was all they'd given us we'd still be on Hotmail.

mikeash 9y ago
I thought gmail’s big competitive advantage was giving users 1GB of space instead of 10MB or whatever that other free webmail providers gave us. I don’t recall gmail’s UI being remarkably better.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  Also, good spam filtering and alternative access through protocols like imap.
the_gastropod 9y ago
Web 2.0, which "happened" in late 2004 was mostly about user participation a la Wikipedia, Wordpress, etc. It was about tagging things a la del.icio.us. Some JavaScript was used to do crazy things like show full-size images from clicking a thumbnail or making wysiwyg editors. But these thick-client "Single Page Apps" people build today didn't really take off until Backbone.js became popular in ~2010. Re: Gmail. It won, not because of its slick JavaScript features (really, there weren't many when it came out in 2004). It won because of the impressive (at the time) storage space they gave you.
- betageek 9y ago
  Although the Wikipedia page may say Web 2.0 was about user generated content and tagging, from a web dev point of view it was about building rich interfaces and using XHR to update content without a full page refresh. Full size images had nothing to do with it. My point is that JavaScript has it place in modern web dev, and saying we should just get rid of it is ridiculous, and not what this article says at all. Gmail won for many reasons, but usability was a big part of it, and it wouldn't be possible to even auto-complete an email address without JavaScript
LolNoGenerics 9y ago
Gmail had an exceptionally well UI, minimal and highly usable. What is bizzare that mailers were extremely bad and you didn't even needed to compare them to Gmail. JS had maybe it's share, but Gmail was minimal, condensed and fast. Literally no one had that back then and today no one knows because competition is dead. Now every webapp is JS heavy, but there is still a great difference in minimalism. Not saying that google products are small, but they seem to have a better balance in "fancy" user interaction than the rest of the web. The reckless transition to a modern web with more bells and whistles takes it's toll, mostly because "we can", but it should be "make sense here".
- betageek 9y ago
  I agree, but I would say that Google are performance addicts because of their scale, where seconds actually count. Most apps are never going to be 'web scale', and most of the time there's no trade off to make. Either the devs use libraries to make something work fast and live with a big js bundle, or they optimise too early and go down the perf rabbit hoe and run out of runway. If your product is of enough value your customers aren't going to care about 1-2 seconds, and if it becomes an issue you can do the perf work later.
  - sli 9y ago
    Hell, even seconds seem like too much. Google's large enough that they can justifiably be concerned about milliseconds.
uoaei 9y ago
Your argument is essentially "sites that need JS as a core requirement to the UX need JS" and "now that everyone uses JS no one shouldn't."
- betageek 9y ago
  My argument is "most sites need JS as a core requirement of their UX". Whether they need 1Mb of it is very doubtful and that's what the original post is about.

mikeash 9y ago

I thought gmail’s big competitive advantage was giving users 1GB of space instead of 10MB or whatever that other free webmail providers gave us. I don’t recall gmail’s UI being remarkably better.

tinus_hn 9y ago
Also, good spam filtering and alternative access through protocols like imap.

the_gastropod 9y ago

Web 2.0, which "happened" in late 2004 was mostly about user participation a la Wikipedia, Wordpress, etc. It was about tagging things a la del.icio.us. Some JavaScript was used to do crazy things like show full-size images from clicking a thumbnail or making wysiwyg editors. But these thick-client "Single Page Apps" people build today didn't really take off until Backbone.js became popular in ~2010. Re: Gmail. It won, not because of its slick JavaScript features (really, there weren't many when it came out in 2004). It won because of the impressive (at the time) storage space they gave you.

betageek 9y ago
Although the Wikipedia page may say Web 2.0 was about user generated content and tagging, from a web dev point of view it was about building rich interfaces and using XHR to update content without a full page refresh. Full size images had nothing to do with it. My point is that JavaScript has it place in modern web dev, and saying we should just get rid of it is ridiculous, and not what this article says at all. Gmail won for many reasons, but usability was a big part of it, and it wouldn't be possible to even auto-complete an email address without JavaScript

LolNoGenerics 9y ago

Gmail had an exceptionally well UI, minimal and highly usable. What is bizzare that mailers were extremely bad and you didn't even needed to compare them to Gmail. JS had maybe it's share, but Gmail was minimal, condensed and fast. Literally no one had that back then and today no one knows because competition is dead. Now every webapp is JS heavy, but there is still a great difference in minimalism. Not saying that google products are small, but they seem to have a better balance in "fancy" user interaction than the rest of the web. The reckless transition to a modern web with more bells and whistles takes it's toll, mostly because "we can", but it should be "make sense here".

betageek 9y ago
I agree, but I would say that Google are performance addicts because of their scale, where seconds actually count. Most apps are never going to be 'web scale', and most of the time there's no trade off to make. Either the devs use libraries to make something work fast and live with a big js bundle, or they optimise too early and go down the perf rabbit hoe and run out of runway. If your product is of enough value your customers aren't going to care about 1-2 seconds, and if it becomes an issue you can do the perf work later.
- sli 9y ago
  Hell, even seconds seem like too much. Google's large enough that they can justifiably be concerned about milliseconds.

uoaei 9y ago

Your argument is essentially "sites that need JS as a core requirement to the UX need JS" and "now that everyone uses JS no one shouldn't."

betageek 9y ago
My argument is "most sites need JS as a core requirement of their UX". Whether they need 1Mb of it is very doubtful and that's what the original post is about.