4 ms·

I don't like that this conflates bloat with JS. I have a minimal chat application that heavily relies websockets and JS, that said, it strives to be data minim

I don't like that this conflates bloat with JS. I have a minimal chat application that heavily relies websockets and JS, that said, it strives to be data minimal. The heaviest part is the initial load of emoji images which get cached. Other than that there are no third party scripts or data transfer. I get that JS can suck and be abused, but I don't really understand the complete allergy to it. A websocket implementation is going to have a lot less overhead than page loads for everything.

userbinator 8y ago
The article is talking about websites, not webapps --- i.e. document-oriented sites, for which JS is really not necessary. For a realtime interactive application like chat, however, the circumstances are different.
- dpau 8y ago
  I'm not sure that's the case, there are a number of the sites on this list, like Facebook and Reddit, that I definitely wouldn't categorize as document-oriented. It seems more of an issue with both how resource intensive the JS-heavy sites are, as well as the purpose of the JS- is it used to track me and invade my privacy, or does the JS have a legitimate use (as in a chat application)? Personally I LOVE JS-powered websites/webapps, as it means that as a lone developer I have the ability to create a website as powerful as a desktop application, without developing multiple versions for each OS/app store. So I, too, don't wish to see a massive backlash against JS, only against bad JS.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Facebook we could dispute once we include the chat (though the chat is available as separate Messenger site/app), but without it it's almost entirely a document-oriented experience. Profiles, timeline, posts, comments - those are all just glorified documents with forms. The same is true about the entirety of Reddit - it's document-oriented by nature. Consider HN as an example of a document-oriented social media site actually implemented as documents.
    - dpau 8y ago
      Even the chat application mentioned previously could be viewed as (and implemented as) "documents with forms". This oversimplification doesn't help us much. It's the powerful, real-time interactivity that javascript provides that is being debated here.
      - naniwaduni 8y ago
        The question is whether the real-time interactivity is desirable. For a chat widget, it almost certainly is. It's less clear for something like Reddit, where the main mechanism for getting updates to the page you're currently viewing is to explicitly refresh.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Go look at TechCrunch and you’ll see why there’s so much hate for JavaScript. That site is awful.

userbinator 8y ago

The article is talking about websites, not webapps --- i.e. document-oriented sites, for which JS is really not necessary. For a realtime interactive application like chat, however, the circumstances are different.

dpau 8y ago
I'm not sure that's the case, there are a number of the sites on this list, like Facebook and Reddit, that I definitely wouldn't categorize as document-oriented. It seems more of an issue with both how resource intensive the JS-heavy sites are, as well as the purpose of the JS- is it used to track me and invade my privacy, or does the JS have a legitimate use (as in a chat application)? Personally I LOVE JS-powered websites/webapps, as it means that as a lone developer I have the ability to create a website as powerful as a desktop application, without developing multiple versions for each OS/app store. So I, too, don't wish to see a massive backlash against JS, only against bad JS.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Facebook we could dispute once we include the chat (though the chat is available as separate Messenger site/app), but without it it's almost entirely a document-oriented experience. Profiles, timeline, posts, comments - those are all just glorified documents with forms. The same is true about the entirety of Reddit - it's document-oriented by nature. Consider HN as an example of a document-oriented social media site actually implemented as documents.
  - dpau 8y ago
    Even the chat application mentioned previously could be viewed as (and implemented as) "documents with forms". This oversimplification doesn't help us much. It's the powerful, real-time interactivity that javascript provides that is being debated here.
    - naniwaduni 8y ago
      The question is whether the real-time interactivity is desirable. For a chat widget, it almost certainly is. It's less clear for something like Reddit, where the main mechanism for getting updates to the page you're currently viewing is to explicitly refresh.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

Go look at TechCrunch and you’ll see why there’s so much hate for JavaScript. That site is awful.