4 ms·
"I hope you're happy with your new proprietary web." Absolutely, and it is close to impossible to discuss rationally without the conversation being dominated b
by endorphone 8y ago
"I hope you're happy with your new proprietary web."
Absolutely, and it is close to impossible to discuss rationally without the conversation being dominated by rhetoric.
https://dennisforbes.ca/index.php/2017/09/05/embrace-amp-or-amp-wins/ https://dennisforbes.ca/index.php/2017/09/05/embrace-amp-or-...
The point of that piece is that AMP is filling a role -- a minimal web for document publishing -- and denying it, as always happens in AMP discussions, simply makes an easy road for AMP's domination.
- tannhaeuser 8y agoI agree, and looking at boards frequented by young "web developers" [1], there's the daily clueless "What framework should I be using?" question by novices (or bots?). Any attempt to tell them "it depends on whether you're doing a content-driven site vs an app" ends in downvotes, "it's 2018, dude" arguments or worse by wannabe developers too much in love with their framework of choice (currently React). But as with anything build on belief, social affinity, and fear of professional irrelevance, the tides are turning. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/webdev/ https://old.reddit.com/r/webdev/
- majewsky 8y ago> AMP is filling a role -- a minimal web for document publishing I always thought HTML 1.0 filled that role.
- mcbits 8y agoHTML has had the potential to fill that role since day one, but while today we're talking about sites sitting blank for 5 seconds because they're downloading megabytes of garbage, back then we had pages sitting blank for 60 seconds because they were downloading 101KB+ of totally insane HTML and animated GIFs of dancing babies and nuclear explosions.