3 ms·
I really, really do not get this obsession with Javascriptless interactivity. I mean, seriously. Its 2018. JS engines are REALLY fast. And by the way, lets not
by Sawamara 8y ago
I really, really do not get this obsession with Javascriptless interactivity.
I mean, seriously. Its 2018. JS engines are REALLY fast. And by the way, lets not be deluded into thinking that the Chrome is a lightweight nothing without JS execution. There are already GPU-aided reflow/repaint operations, your whole UI context lives on a different thread, tons of services are pulled back for audio/video capabilities, not to mention addons, HTML engine, etc.
So just learn proper JS, do not overdo it, and write efficient scripts. Its doable.
- g_delgado14 8y agoJust because a JS engine is really fast doesn't mean you should do everything in JS, esp if CSS is the right tool for the job (not to say that this particular demo is a good example of using the right tool for the job).
- Sawamara 8y agoSure, right tool for the right job, etc. Animations are almost always better when they can be hinted to the GPU (will-change), can be transitioned with translate2d changes, and do not cause reflow by being used on absolute/fixed positioned elements. For example. My point is that not using JS will not make browsing experience into something "pure". It will remain an incredibly compplex stuff in itself, which JS is only a part of. And when it comes to firing off XHR's, setting some data or providing interactivity (with real states, etc), then JS is a good tool for the job.
- workinthehead 8y agoWhat's the point of your comment? If you can do the same thing without JavaScript or with, the implementation that doesn't use JavaScript is categorically preferable.
- yzmtf2008 8y agoThe point of the comment, is that if you can do the same thing without JavaScript or with, the implementation that doesn't use JavaScript is not categorically preferable.