4 ms·

> It's perfectly okay to mostly ship HTML with minimal JS Some might even say it is better to mostly ship HTML with minimal JS. ducks

mathgladiator 7y ago
For some markets, it is even a competitive advantage. :)
jeroenhd 7y ago
I'd say for most web content, minimal JS gives the best experience. With all the integration and UI improvements browsers have gone through the past ten years, all most content needs is some CSS to add a theme and some minor readability tweaks, except if there's some interactive animation that add value to the content on the web page. You don't even need JS for videos or audio anymore, it's all there in the browser. It's sad how most websites these days are fully-featured web applications. Take this blog page by Google. A simple web page with some pictures loading over 300kB of Javascript libraries and tooling. And this isn't even an exception. It's sad, really, and a waste of readers' bandwidth.
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  css animations on :hover and :active psuedoclasses can go a long way for an interactive experience without running programs too.
ng12 7y ago
The principle of least power still applies in the FE space. If you can get away with rudimentary technology, do it. The problem I find is usually misaligned incentives. When you go to BuzzFeed you just want to read an article, but BuzzFeed wants to track you and sell you ads. It's not in their best interest to keep it simple.
ttflee 7y ago
For the sake of climate change, HTML with minimal JS/without JS is preferable.
gear54rus 7y ago
Who is going to maintain that loosely linked spaghetti of html with minimal js? You? If you're not going to, don't tell me how to work with code I gotta work with. Can we just agree to let this meme die? React and vue didn't appear because developers wanted bloat. If you want to reduce bloat, take that to corporate greedy actors stuffing pages with tracking and don't ever touch tools that make my life easier.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  The Web framework that has decades of experience in large scale production deployments and has the ability to pack FE libraries as components. Spring, JEE, ASP.NET, Rails, Django,...
  - gear54rus 7y ago
    > The Web framework that has decades of experience in large scale production deployments and has the ability to pack FE libraries as components. Same question. Who's going to write all those 'components' wrapping libraries for each of those when everyone has already moved on to react or vue? Some disgruntled retrograde? Am I supposed to waste time on it so that you can bask in the glory of 'pure html and js'?
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      The fallacy of that argument is that actually not everyone has drunk the react or vue Kool-Aid. In a few years the React/Vue fad will be gone, while HTML/CSS/VanilaJS will still be around. We are the ones not wasting time learning fad of the day stacks.
      - gear54rus 7y ago
        > In a few years the React/Vue fad will be gone, Certainly. However, something even better will replace it and you guys will moan about it again. It only hurts yourself if you refuse to learn.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mathgladiator 7y ago

For some markets, it is even a competitive advantage. :)

jeroenhd 7y ago

I'd say for most web content, minimal JS gives the best experience. With all the integration and UI improvements browsers have gone through the past ten years, all most content needs is some CSS to add a theme and some minor readability tweaks, except if there's some interactive animation that add value to the content on the web page. You don't even need JS for videos or audio anymore, it's all there in the browser. It's sad how most websites these days are fully-featured web applications. Take this blog page by Google. A simple web page with some pictures loading over 300kB of Javascript libraries and tooling. And this isn't even an exception. It's sad, really, and a waste of readers' bandwidth.

jazzyjackson 7y ago
css animations on :hover and :active psuedoclasses can go a long way for an interactive experience without running programs too.

ng12 7y ago

The principle of least power still applies in the FE space. If you can get away with rudimentary technology, do it. The problem I find is usually misaligned incentives. When you go to BuzzFeed you just want to read an article, but BuzzFeed wants to track you and sell you ads. It's not in their best interest to keep it simple.

ttflee 7y ago

For the sake of climate change, HTML with minimal JS/without JS is preferable.

gear54rus 7y ago

Who is going to maintain that loosely linked spaghetti of html with minimal js? You? If you're not going to, don't tell me how to work with code I gotta work with. Can we just agree to let this meme die? React and vue didn't appear because developers wanted bloat. If you want to reduce bloat, take that to corporate greedy actors stuffing pages with tracking and don't ever touch tools that make my life easier.

pjmlp 7y ago
The Web framework that has decades of experience in large scale production deployments and has the ability to pack FE libraries as components. Spring, JEE, ASP.NET, Rails, Django,...
- gear54rus 7y ago
  > The Web framework that has decades of experience in large scale production deployments and has the ability to pack FE libraries as components. Same question. Who's going to write all those 'components' wrapping libraries for each of those when everyone has already moved on to react or vue? Some disgruntled retrograde? Am I supposed to waste time on it so that you can bask in the glory of 'pure html and js'?
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    The fallacy of that argument is that actually not everyone has drunk the react or vue Kool-Aid. In a few years the React/Vue fad will be gone, while HTML/CSS/VanilaJS will still be around. We are the ones not wasting time learning fad of the day stacks.
    - gear54rus 7y ago
      > In a few years the React/Vue fad will be gone, Certainly. However, something even better will replace it and you guys will moan about it again. It only hurts yourself if you refuse to learn.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]