4 ms·

In the spirit of cranky HN bikeshedding, I present: The page body, as seen by a NoScript user: <body> <div id=app></div> <script type=text/javascript

In the spirit of cranky HN bikeshedding, I present: The page body, as seen by a NoScript user: <body> <div id=app></div> <script type=text/javascript src=/static/js/manifest.14a76fad9b304f57d579.js></script> <script type=text/javascript src=/static/js/vendor.ffa8aef8ba29f634abaf.js></script> <script type=text/javascript src=/static/js/app.08230312c2e739a44ea1.js></script> </body> Web developers: Please, you can do better than this.

roryisok 9y ago
There certainly should be a static page version. Especially since there is barely any interactive element to this, it's essentially just a list of links
- sebazzz 9y ago
  It is certainly an interesting choice to use a fully fledged SPA framework to render a static page. And since it runs on Azure App Services, I'd say server side rendering should be possible.
allover 9y ago
The audience for this site is front-end developers. Front-end developers don't tend to view the web with NoScript. Just like 99% of users don't view the web with NoScript.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  Is it just for front-end developers? I'm a back-end developer, but, when I wanted to indent that HTML in order to post it, I switched over to the instance of vscode that I virtually always having running in order to use its pretty printer.
  - allover 9y ago
    > Is it just for front-end developers? 1 out of 15 examples (the Docker one) don't involve HTML or JS. (And backend JS devs are generally pro-JS so likely aren't using NoScript either). Do you use NoScript? Maybe you do and you're the <1%, but fact is even if you do, both you and GPP turned it off to view the site already ...
Ninn 9y ago
Please know that no one really cares. You must realise you cannot expect to consume our applications but only on your own terms. Theres no contract saying you should ONLY serve HTML on the web.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  I can't speak for gp, but the reason I whitelist Javascript is because the dozens of third party scripts pages load provide no benefits to me as a user and only waste my bandwidth and cpu while risking my security and privacy. Sometimes the first-party scripts do something useful and I enable them. That a simple document with embedded videos "needs" js to load at all is sheer lunacy. The modern web is a massive house of cards. I don't want to be uncivil but I find it very hard to understand how anyone thinks they're doing good work after they create a simple (and useful!) web document that requires javascript to load. If you're using Javascript to make a web application, fine, clearly there's no reasonable alternative. But if you need Javascript to produce a web document, what are you doing? I wonder how much more electricity is being consumed annually processing utterly pointless Javascript.
  - chalupa-man 9y ago
    One of the increasingly popular uses of JS is to save bandwidth. Using JS, you can ask the browser if the user is on a metered connection or an unlimited one, what their estimated bandwidth capacity is, what their real resolution is, and load appropriate assets (or conditionally load content). With JS disabled, a user on a pay-per-kilobyte 360x640 cellphone is going to get assets deemed acceptable on the manager's 1440p desktop. There are already quite a few websites where disabling JS more than doubles your bandwidth usage -- and sites that are only even usable in third world countries because of JS like this -- and that's going to increase as screen and media quality grow. Not to mention the huge accessibility benefits that can come from changing the way a site behaves (not just visually but in terms of things like tab and focus behaviour or separating components out) for disabled users. Doing that reliably and effectively for all content on all devices is much easier if you can identify the needs before downloading the content which means JS-loaded content and so it can come down to deciding whether to annoy NoScript users or disabled users.
kenbolton 9y ago
I'm building a pipeline that sends pages like this out to splash and returns the js-rendered html to my browser.
andrepd 9y ago
Like holy shit, how can a webpage displaying text and videos slow my supercomputer to a halt. Truly a feat of technology.
- dragonshed 9y ago
  It was pretty fast on my phone. I'd replace the snark with additional details so the author could attempt to reproduce your issue.
jesalg 9y ago
Yeah, this could be a static HTML/CSS site but that's the state of the modern web for better or worse. Markup rendered by a framework like React/Vue and bundled up with Webpack. It's just easier to build that way.
make3 9y ago
you can't expect any one to invest money for the 0.000001 %
pvg 9y ago
That's the spirit of pointless, offtopic shitting all over a thread. You can and should do better than this.
yashap 9y ago
It’s a page aimed at web devs, evangelizing an editor written in JS. If you want to read it, turn on JS. If you turn off a key component of the modern web, you should expect that things will break, and not complain about it.
mcav 9y ago
Your criticism might be better understood with less prejudice; perhaps something like this instead: "Websites should not unnecessarily require JavaScript."

roryisok 9y ago

There certainly should be a static page version. Especially since there is barely any interactive element to this, it's essentially just a list of links

sebazzz 9y ago
It is certainly an interesting choice to use a fully fledged SPA framework to render a static page. And since it runs on Azure App Services, I'd say server side rendering should be possible.

allover 9y ago

The audience for this site is front-end developers. Front-end developers don't tend to view the web with NoScript. Just like 99% of users don't view the web with NoScript.

bunderbunder 9y ago
Is it just for front-end developers? I'm a back-end developer, but, when I wanted to indent that HTML in order to post it, I switched over to the instance of vscode that I virtually always having running in order to use its pretty printer.
- allover 9y ago
  > Is it just for front-end developers? 1 out of 15 examples (the Docker one) don't involve HTML or JS. (And backend JS devs are generally pro-JS so likely aren't using NoScript either). Do you use NoScript? Maybe you do and you're the <1%, but fact is even if you do, both you and GPP turned it off to view the site already ...

Ninn 9y ago

Please know that no one really cares. You must realise you cannot expect to consume our applications but only on your own terms. Theres no contract saying you should ONLY serve HTML on the web.

Amezarak 9y ago
I can't speak for gp, but the reason I whitelist Javascript is because the dozens of third party scripts pages load provide no benefits to me as a user and only waste my bandwidth and cpu while risking my security and privacy. Sometimes the first-party scripts do something useful and I enable them. That a simple document with embedded videos "needs" js to load at all is sheer lunacy. The modern web is a massive house of cards. I don't want to be uncivil but I find it very hard to understand how anyone thinks they're doing good work after they create a simple (and useful!) web document that requires javascript to load. If you're using Javascript to make a web application, fine, clearly there's no reasonable alternative. But if you need Javascript to produce a web document, what are you doing? I wonder how much more electricity is being consumed annually processing utterly pointless Javascript.
- chalupa-man 9y ago
  One of the increasingly popular uses of JS is to save bandwidth. Using JS, you can ask the browser if the user is on a metered connection or an unlimited one, what their estimated bandwidth capacity is, what their real resolution is, and load appropriate assets (or conditionally load content). With JS disabled, a user on a pay-per-kilobyte 360x640 cellphone is going to get assets deemed acceptable on the manager's 1440p desktop. There are already quite a few websites where disabling JS more than doubles your bandwidth usage -- and sites that are only even usable in third world countries because of JS like this -- and that's going to increase as screen and media quality grow. Not to mention the huge accessibility benefits that can come from changing the way a site behaves (not just visually but in terms of things like tab and focus behaviour or separating components out) for disabled users. Doing that reliably and effectively for all content on all devices is much easier if you can identify the needs before downloading the content which means JS-loaded content and so it can come down to deciding whether to annoy NoScript users or disabled users.

kenbolton 9y ago

I'm building a pipeline that sends pages like this out to splash and returns the js-rendered html to my browser.

andrepd 9y ago

Like holy shit, how can a webpage displaying text and videos slow my supercomputer to a halt. Truly a feat of technology.

dragonshed 9y ago
It was pretty fast on my phone. I'd replace the snark with additional details so the author could attempt to reproduce your issue.

jesalg 9y ago

Yeah, this could be a static HTML/CSS site but that's the state of the modern web for better or worse. Markup rendered by a framework like React/Vue and bundled up with Webpack. It's just easier to build that way.

make3 9y ago

you can't expect any one to invest money for the 0.000001 %

pvg 9y ago

That's the spirit of pointless, offtopic shitting all over a thread. You can and should do better than this.

yashap 9y ago

It’s a page aimed at web devs, evangelizing an editor written in JS. If you want to read it, turn on JS. If you turn off a key component of the modern web, you should expect that things will break, and not complain about it.

mcav 9y ago

Your criticism might be better understood with less prejudice; perhaps something like this instead: "Websites should not unnecessarily require JavaScript."