4 ms·

Noone is concerned by the fact this is sending your text using POST requests. The guy could not use DOM/JS.

by tuttle7 8y ago

stilldavid 8y ago
I'd be more concerned if you used this for actual secrets.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Crespyl 8y ago
No, no one is concerned by this. Not every toy website needs to have JS.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  Nah bro, it needs Webpack and a mishmash of Angular and Vue with a "sprinkling" of React along with an Elixir backend so it's fault-tolerant. Else, how is this toy site supposed to scale at all?
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  I think the point the tuttle7 was trying to make was that this site could be implemented client-side quite easily. There's no real reason to make the translation server-side and require more server CPU resources and bandwidth. I feel the same way about https://www.base64decode.org/ https://www.base64decode.org/ . By default, everything gets translated server-side. I wonder how many people use this site on a regular basis for translating secrets. I'd bet my life that the number is greater than zero.
richrichardsson 8y ago
That's why you write rude messages to give him/her a laugh when checking server logs.
- tuttle7 8y ago
  Yep, passed the test. There is then checks made on contents send. A little warning on how the send data is handled would have been appreciated. Thank you.
  - marssaxman 8y ago
    Why on earth would you need a warning that text entered into an HTML form would be posted to the server when you pressed the button? What else would you expect it to do?
    - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
      I'd expect such a trivial operation to be done client-side in JavaScript and not need to ask a server to do it for them.
krsdcbl 8y ago
If i can carry a bucket on my shoulder, why get a car to move it?
bratch 8y ago
I was delighted that a fun toy didn't need JS for once. If the concern is one of privacy, the author could just be sending the text to the server in the background with JS too.

Noone is concerned by the fact this is sending your text using POST requests. The guy could not use DOM/JS.

stilldavid 8y ago

I'd be more concerned if you used this for actual secrets.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Crespyl 8y ago

No, no one is concerned by this. Not every toy website needs to have JS.

ravenstine 8y ago
Nah bro, it needs Webpack and a mishmash of Angular and Vue with a "sprinkling" of React along with an Elixir backend so it's fault-tolerant. Else, how is this toy site supposed to scale at all?
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
I think the point the tuttle7 was trying to make was that this site could be implemented client-side quite easily. There's no real reason to make the translation server-side and require more server CPU resources and bandwidth. I feel the same way about https://www.base64decode.org/ https://www.base64decode.org/ . By default, everything gets translated server-side. I wonder how many people use this site on a regular basis for translating secrets. I'd bet my life that the number is greater than zero.

richrichardsson 8y ago

That's why you write rude messages to give him/her a laugh when checking server logs.

tuttle7 8y ago
Yep, passed the test. There is then checks made on contents send. A little warning on how the send data is handled would have been appreciated. Thank you.
- marssaxman 8y ago
  Why on earth would you need a warning that text entered into an HTML form would be posted to the server when you pressed the button? What else would you expect it to do?
  - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
    I'd expect such a trivial operation to be done client-side in JavaScript and not need to ask a server to do it for them.

krsdcbl 8y ago

If i can carry a bucket on my shoulder, why get a car to move it?

bratch 8y ago

I was delighted that a fun toy didn't need JS for once. If the concern is one of privacy, the author could just be sending the text to the server in the background with JS too.