3 ms·
Oh, I don't want to give all the freedom that JavaScript in the browser gives, and that's the whole point. If we came up with something that allowed the same th
by madez 9y ago
Oh, I don't want to give all the freedom that JavaScript in the browser gives, and that's the whole point. If we came up with something that allowed the same things, then that would be a pointless exercise. There will be cuts in aspects, some necessary, some intentional.
I don't advocate for a better way to have apps on the web, but to have a better app-less web.
I'm a bit tired to talk about this topic right now. I'm also repeating myself. I talked a lot about JavaScript on HN recently, so you can read there more, and the surround comments have lots of other perspectives. Not everything has been said. Maybe I'll write up a structured and hopefully complete blog post about it some day soon.
- EgoIncarnate 9y agoI will certainly agree that requiring JavaScript unnecessarily should be frowned on and progressive enhancement should be the norm. A least give user the option of taking on additional security risks associated with Javascript (and WebAssembly) or not (edit: where possible).
- SquareWheel 9y agoAgreed to a point. For some apps user interaction is required, and progressive enhancement isn't possible. For non-apps though, it's still very important. Articles should not require a JS bundle to load. When JS is used, it should be optimized.
- EgoIncarnate 9y agoUnfortunately the web seems to be moving away from a progressive enhancement world. Momentum seems to be with whatever is easiest. JavaScript frameworks, analytics companies, and ad companies would probably all have to make progressive enhancement the default way for that to change.