5 ms·

This seems demonstrably untrue. Basic html development is vastly cheaper than “modern JavaScript” which would give any company w an HTML-only strategy a huge ad

This seems demonstrably untrue. Basic html development is vastly cheaper than “modern JavaScript” which would give any company w an HTML-only strategy a huge advantage. Why aren’t HTML-only companies dominating in every market?

buboard 7y ago
You mean like amazon or ebay or paypal or yahoo? Or like how facebook was so html that they wrote their own php interpreter?
- mmczaplinski 7y ago
  you mean the same facebook which created react.js? If you think any of those companies is not betting heavily on JS, you're out of touch :)
  - buboard 7y ago
    maybe, but i dont think they grew because of JS. they grew despite it maybe ;)
    - reroute1 7y ago
      maybe, but it's impossible without it
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  None of those sites are static html. Not even close.
  - buboard 7y ago
    html != static
    - azernik 7y ago
      Static literally == not using JavaScript to manipulate the DOM. Once you're stuck using JS for core functionality, you really want a decent programming language. I think people are complaining about two separate things - actually-static-ish websites like newspapers, shipping 10MB, and web apps like Facebook shipping 10MB. The latter is an unavoidable outcome of shipping Serious Software; the former is mostly driven by ad networks, not development ease.
      - kuzimoto 7y ago
        I think static could have multiple meaning, and the one the original comment meant is ambiguous. There are "static site generators" which technically generate static sites, but could still use JavaScript.
      - buboard 7y ago
        Yeah we re talking about html, not static. Plus, iirc, it is actually most SPAs that are ‘static’, i.e served as plain index.html containing all the Javascript.