3 ms·

Pure static sites are extremely rare. I dont have an issue with pushing beyond pure html. But js doesn't build on that concept of xml and work along side of i

Pure static sites are extremely rare. I dont have an issue with pushing beyond pure html. But js doesn't build on that concept of xml and work along side of it. JS destroys that concept and replaces it with something unique on every site. I think web assembly is a step in the right direction and the sooner we drop js the better.

krapp 8y ago
I don't think that's entirely fair. Javascript's original intent was to allow scripting the DOM and adding interactivity to the document, which could be considered working alongside it. I would agree that the scale of its use has been taken too far, but that seems more a complaint about implementation and developer culture than the language itself. Even without Javascript, the design of every site is still potentially unique. And isn't web assembly a further step in the same direction?
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  I don't think allowing scripting of the DOM was a great idea personally. The goal of the original web was layout and structure of information and the links between them. Javascript bulldozes over both the DOM and URL's. The nice thing about web assembly from what I've read, is that it doesn't allow access to the DOM. It basically creates its own sandbox that is then included on the page. You can INCLUDE interactivity in the page, but, you can't overwrite the page itself. Because of this it kind of encourages a progressive web design style. You will design the html/xml first then you will wrap the interactivity within. This will encourage a separation of concerns between highly interactive, more complicated code, and layout and structuring of documents. There will be some issues to be overcome and I doubt it will be as ideallyic as I imagine, but I think overall it would be a more sane web being able to select 'disable javascript' without any worries. Just my 2 cents.

krapp 8y ago

I don't think that's entirely fair. Javascript's original intent was to allow scripting the DOM and adding interactivity to the document, which could be considered working alongside it. I would agree that the scale of its use has been taken too far, but that seems more a complaint about implementation and developer culture than the language itself. Even without Javascript, the design of every site is still potentially unique. And isn't web assembly a further step in the same direction?

nickthemagicman 8y ago
I don't think allowing scripting of the DOM was a great idea personally. The goal of the original web was layout and structure of information and the links between them. Javascript bulldozes over both the DOM and URL's. The nice thing about web assembly from what I've read, is that it doesn't allow access to the DOM. It basically creates its own sandbox that is then included on the page. You can INCLUDE interactivity in the page, but, you can't overwrite the page itself. Because of this it kind of encourages a progressive web design style. You will design the html/xml first then you will wrap the interactivity within. This will encourage a separation of concerns between highly interactive, more complicated code, and layout and structuring of documents. There will be some issues to be overcome and I doubt it will be as ideallyic as I imagine, but I think overall it would be a more sane web being able to select 'disable javascript' without any worries. Just my 2 cents.