9 ms·
Cool. Could someone just explain how to build https://app.moqups.com/ https://app.moqups.com/ or https://designer.gravit.io/ https://designer.gravit.io/ using o
by stupidcar 8y ago
Cool. Could someone just explain how to build https://app.moqups.com/ https://app.moqups.com/ or https://designer.gravit.io/ https://designer.gravit.io/ using only HTML, CSS and server-side rendering?
Otherwise I'll just dismiss this as the same cloud-oriented geriatric yelling that Hacker News has been upvoting for the last 15 years, to absolutely no purpose or result.
- RussianCow 8y agoI came here to say basically this. Complaining that a content-centric site like the New York Times loads 2.8mb of data just to load an article is completely valid because it's entirely unnecessary, and makes the end user experience noticeably worse. But let's not generalize that by dismissing all single-page applications; sometimes a heavy frontend really is the best solution.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoAuthor here. Obviously not all "websites" are suited to be done with HTML and CSS alone. The examples I gave, the New York Times, GitHub, and sr.ht, along with many others, are.
- saagarjha 8y agoThere's nothing wrong with using JavaScript if you really need it. But make sure it's your own JavaScript, not a dozen third-party ad networks.
- zzzeek 8y agoBut what if those ad networks are paying my rent
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoThat doesn't make anyone less of a dick for letting ad networks ruin their websites. It just means that the old quote applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
- Notorious_BLT 8y agoThen you'll need to accept that people will be annoyed by your method of paying rent, and that some will reject or block it.
- wetpaws 8y agoThere is a difference between websites and web apps. News portals are clearly not apps.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- matchbok 8y agoI would argue that complex tools like this really have no place on the web. The benefits (available anywhere) are greatly outweighed by the cons (slow, no integration with your system, browser crap, ads, etc etc etc)
- badsectoracula 8y agoTBH as a user i do not see a reason for these two to be running inside a web browser. They'd be faster, more light on system resources, more capable and less locked to their developers' whims as standalone desktop applications (Electron monstrosities excluded).
- nine_k 8y agoWeb: write once, run everywhere, the user is guaranteed to have the runtime installed. This is damn hard to beat, even with other reasonably written multiplatform toolkits like Java FX or Qt. Also, a web page is its own environment, not intended to blend in. With "native" apps, there's always a bunch of "...but not native enough" complaints. (My idea is that some apps should explicitly aim to look alien and their own, without making attempts to fit in, like e.g. Photoshop or Blender do.) With Java FX, you have to have the user install a recent JRE. With Java 9, though, I suppose you can make one fat binary with only the relevant parts of JRE and you code strung together, and the rest removed. (This has security implications, though.) Qt means C++ which is a pain for many reasons, or e.g. Python which is a pain to distribute, though this can be alleviated (pack everything into a single fat binary). You still have to have a build per platform. I just suppose that Web tech expertise is easier to come by, and a Web product faster to produce, at least initially. This trumps great many reasons from the business perspective.
- chooseaname 8y agoAh, yes, the ol' "pull out one or two counter examples thus glossing over the point and being snarky about it argument!" Well played!