> Maybe at some point web developers have to accept that the web was simply not built for the things they're trying to do with it, and that comes with a cost.

> Maybe at some point web developers have to accept that the web was simply not built for the things they're trying to do with it, and that comes with a cost. So what's your proposal? To have one browser for "web documents" and another just for those things built by web developers that you dismiss with straw men, yet still acknowledge as having value? If they have value, but they incur a cost, shouldn't we be looking at why we have that cost and how to drive it down? That's exactly what the post you're replying to is trying to convey. Yes, not everything has to be animated or an SPA, because some things are good enough as just simple "web documents". But others gain in usefulness, usability and cognition by being augmented (e.g. data visualisation, business apps, games, et al). Not every web content is created for the same purpose. We still end up with the same crippled DOM/JavaScript combo. That should be the focus of the conversation.