5 ms·
This is false. Many websites are using Javascript to render the websites in full to give the users a better experience, such as rendered a SPA (Single-Page-Appl
by epenance 9y ago
This is false. Many websites are using Javascript to render the websites in full to give the users a better experience, such as rendered a SPA (Single-Page-Application) to prevent unneeded amounts of data loaded on each page request and only load exactly what you need, to give a faster, smoother and higher quality experience for the user.
Sure the mom down the street who wants to blog about the her kitchen recipes wont be needing it, but a lot of websites "do"
- cm2187 9y agoWebsites are only bloated because of the MB of javascript to make them applications (images do not count as they need to be rendered either way and can be cached). Most of the websites I visit every day don’t display that much content. Once gzipped it's a tiny file.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoYeah and if you visit a site everyday, the JS is cached, too. After the initial download, it shouln't be an issue. This is besides the fact that it should not take MBs of JS to make complex applications. The issue is what people are choosing to do with the tools, not the tools themselves.
- cm2187 9y agoWell right now the problem is that the tool is broken. We have a long term non fixable issue (outside of replacing the hardware) with non trusted code running locally.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- madez 9y agoHTML can be cached, too. Even if JavaScript permitted some clever way to safe network traffic like for example delivering the site as a torrent that is then downloaded from other visitors [0], then we can standardize that and implement it as a part of HTML or so. [0] For example something like https://github.com/xuset/planktos https://github.com/xuset/planktos but without the JavaScript.
- davidcuddeback 9y ago> the JS is cached Except that the current trend in webdev is to deploy small incremental changes multiple times per day and cache-bust the assets that change on each of those deploys. So the user is probably actually downloading the JS asset at least once per day Monday through Thursday (because no deploys on Fridays).
- JohnStrange 9y agoYou mean those eternally scrolling pages whose main purpose is to hide content that belongs to the user in the first place? These sites are a pest.
- twic 9y agoI would be absolutely astounded if there was any SPA which moved fewer bytes over the network than its plain HTML equivalent. HTML can be written compactly, and the repeated structures compress well; any increase in the size of the data over JSON will be more than made up for by not needing to load megabytes of javascript.
- xtanx 9y agoThe statement "a better experience" is debatable. I cannot remember how many times I have visited SPA websites that break the browser url history. Also, if a SPA fails to load a request for any reason, try reloading it. Ops you start over. And I am not talking about some people that don't know what they are doing. At times I've had issues with Google's new developer console, gsuite admin, analytics, product hunt and others.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- send_computers 9y agoThese are all examples of bugs or badly designed/coded applications. Don't blame JS for bad coding...
- xtanx 9y agoWell, if google can't do it properly then who can? Also, I was talking about SPAs specifically not JS in general.
- seba_dos1 9y agoBut it's really really really hard to not do bad code in JS - a whole ecosystem seemingly built to encourage terribleness.
- alien_at_work 9y agoNonsense. Bad tools are bad tools as evidenced by the fact that literally no one can use properly at scale. Evangelists of bad technologies always like to trott out the nonsense about "a good carpenter never blames their tools"... well of course they don't: they buy the tools and always buy the appropriate ones. Further, if they did complain the customer would wonder why they bought bad tools in the first place. A carpenter would never try to build a building with a "JavaScript" equivalent in the first place. They recognize the tool as garbage (perhaps after trying, and failing, to use it) and switch to something more appropriate.
- LaGrange 9y agoIf you took away JS from Facebook and Twitter, they'd literally be a better experience. They'd be forced to give up much of what makes them painful to use. At least Twitter had a character counter, that was a useful JS feature, but they broke even that. And if you need a diagraming tool, maybe a website isn't the best solution.
- tn_ 9y agoIt's that simple, huh? Why not save everyone the trouble and replace GUI's with terminals while we are at it.