4 ms·

This article makes the assumption that every decision you make as a web developer is unaffected by co-workers. I'm all for progressive enhancement. However, if

This article makes the assumption that every decision you make as a web developer is unaffected by co-workers. I'm all for progressive enhancement. However, if the expectation is a web _application_ that has a certain level of interactivity designed for, with a real world deadline, and a targeted demographic of "people with supercomputers in their pockets", I can guarantee you'll make some compromises. Bringing up Springer Nature and the BBC as examples of the Web Built Right™ is short-sighted when they are web _sites_ that serve static content. Of course you should send HTML from the server that represents the entire content of the page, apply some CSS, and sprinkle in JS. And of course, there are a lot of developers out there that would reach for the latest trending JS library + framework combo to pull it off, and they'll implement it poorly. There's very little point in bashing "npm install exciting-tech", when I can npm install gatsby-cli, and do everything the article is crying out for in a "modern" stack. Oh, also, the BBC example? They use Node, and React, and server-side render React[0]. You can bet they're npm installing exciting-tech. However, the web is not just static sites anymore. People expect a lot more functionality, you work with people that design and promise a lot more interactivity, and there's a lot more people coding without enough experience to reach for the tech that is the most efficient solution to a problem. I don't think a condescending article like this is beneficial for our community. Maybe we should try educating (nicely?) on how to pick the right tech for the problem[1]. Maybe we should ditch "user" for "person" (or "surfers" lol), when talking about the consumers of our output. And finally, maybe we should have more empathy of the people that work with our trade and work together towards a better internet. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/47a96d23-ae04-444e-808f-678e6809765d http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/47a96d23-ae04-44... [1] http://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology http://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology

TeMPOraL 8y ago
I think the observation necessary for appreciating this article is that most sites that are built as SPAs these days aren't really web apps, they're still web pages. They're more similar to BBC and Springer Nature than to Google Sheets or LucidCharts. That's a property of the problem they're trying to solve. Building a web app where a web page would do shows total lack of interest about providing value to the user.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

I think the observation necessary for appreciating this article is that most sites that are built as SPAs these days aren't really web apps, they're still web pages. They're more similar to BBC and Springer Nature than to Google Sheets or LucidCharts. That's a property of the problem they're trying to solve. Building a web app where a web page would do shows total lack of interest about providing value to the user.