3 ms·

> I am constantly surprised at the number of sites that should be totally static (e.g. a local restaurant's menu page) that display nothing at all when I visit

> I am constantly surprised at the number of sites that should be totally static (e.g. a local restaurant's menu page) that display nothing at all when I visit with JavaScript disabled. I am constantly surprised at the number of people that explicitly disable JavaScript to make their lives difficult in 2018. My point is, JavaScript makes it easy to build nice websites at scale. Plenty of CMS platforms (like Wix.com) use JavaScript by default. If 99.9999999% of people are fine with JavaScript, then why should a website cater to your need by providing a version specific to people who disable JavaScript?

purple_ducks 8y ago
> JavaScript makes it easy to build nice websites at scale > build nice websites at scale > at scale What? Might as well mention ML & blockchain while we're at it. If site is not interactive, it doesn't _need_ JS. If it does need JS, it more than likely needs _sprinkles_ of it.
- paraditedc 8y ago
  By "at scale", I mean building abstractions on top of commonly used html elements and making them interactive, using something like "components" in React. Then you only need to write the shopping cart or image gallery once, and users of website builders can just click a button to add it to their website. Also, interactivity almost always gives better UX than static websites, if it's done properly by a professional website builder like Wix or Squarespace. So there's not much to hate it except maybe a few MB of extra code that you need to download. I can't think of any good use cases for static websites in 2018, except maybe blogs in pure plaintext or old fashioned forums. Even HN has JavaScript for that little bit of interactivity (collapsing comments).
  - purple_ducks 8y ago
    > By "at scale", I mean building abstractions on top of commonly used html elements and making them interactive, This sounds like double-speak. That's not what at scale refers to, even allowing a very loose definition. How the HTML is generated is moot. Server side templates had re-usability at a "component" level. iFrames exist, redirects exist. I'm not saying all JS is bad. I'm saying too may new people seem to think JS in and of itself is magic and there is no other way to generate/manipulate the DOM or talk to other computers. I'm bailing out of this conversation now because you're heavily conflating HTML, browser functionality and www fundamentals with website builders(i don't know why you felt the need to qualify it with "professional") > Even HN has JavaScript for that little bit of interactivity (collapsing comments). Yeah no, "even HN" works perfectly with JS blocked. JS for HN is an enhancement, not a requirement. They understand how the web can work...

purple_ducks 8y ago

> JavaScript makes it easy to build nice websites at scale > build nice websites at scale > at scale What? Might as well mention ML & blockchain while we're at it. If site is not interactive, it doesn't _need_ JS. If it does need JS, it more than likely needs _sprinkles_ of it.

paraditedc 8y ago
By "at scale", I mean building abstractions on top of commonly used html elements and making them interactive, using something like "components" in React. Then you only need to write the shopping cart or image gallery once, and users of website builders can just click a button to add it to their website. Also, interactivity almost always gives better UX than static websites, if it's done properly by a professional website builder like Wix or Squarespace. So there's not much to hate it except maybe a few MB of extra code that you need to download. I can't think of any good use cases for static websites in 2018, except maybe blogs in pure plaintext or old fashioned forums. Even HN has JavaScript for that little bit of interactivity (collapsing comments).
- purple_ducks 8y ago
  > By "at scale", I mean building abstractions on top of commonly used html elements and making them interactive, This sounds like double-speak. That's not what at scale refers to, even allowing a very loose definition. How the HTML is generated is moot. Server side templates had re-usability at a "component" level. iFrames exist, redirects exist. I'm not saying all JS is bad. I'm saying too may new people seem to think JS in and of itself is magic and there is no other way to generate/manipulate the DOM or talk to other computers. I'm bailing out of this conversation now because you're heavily conflating HTML, browser functionality and www fundamentals with website builders(i don't know why you felt the need to qualify it with "professional") > Even HN has JavaScript for that little bit of interactivity (collapsing comments). Yeah no, "even HN" works perfectly with JS blocked. JS for HN is an enhancement, not a requirement. They understand how the web can work...