3 ms·

This is basically advising you to create small pure HTML pages without any JavaScript circa 1995. Just try it on Google Documents, the whole screen turns red. D

This is basically advising you to create small pure HTML pages without any JavaScript circa 1995. Just try it on Google Documents, the whole screen turns red. Deeply nested HTML Elements, lots of DOM elements are problematic? I guess we shouldn't make fancy web pages, full desktop apps in the browser as browsers can't handle it. ^_

ahoyhere 16y ago
Not true at all. I design heavily interactive apps and my husband, Thomas, wrote the first OSS JavaScript animation library (Scriptaculous). We consistently push boundaries. It's what we do :) But for a good example of how to do heavily interactive, shiny, Javascripty apps, look at our work on http://twistori.com http://twistori.com http://letsfreckle.com http://letsfreckle.com http://pepsicozeitgeist.com http://pepsicozeitgeist.com etc :) not to mention Scriptaculous, Scripty2, Zepto, etc. And test their performance versus others. Yep, making heavily interactive, heavy graphical web apps is a trade-off. That's why you have to know every single little thing that can slow things down, and then you have to make the decision which you can get away with and which you can't. Thus our suggestions are quite strict! For more information, you might enjoy our book: http://jsrocks.com http://jsrocks.com :)
- btipling 16y ago
  Well what do you think would score better given your tool, a page with basic HTML or google docs? Ok that's not a fair question, but the problem is with the suggestions, it suggests you to move toward a blank page. With nothing on it. With the exception of maybe letsfreckle, those apps you mentioned are shiny and have some dynamicism, but they are not heavy client side apps. I can't see how letsfreckle performs on your tool given it has a paywall and there's no demo. Having said that, I do want to read your book. I'll check it out.
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    So, what you're saying is, if our tool says your web app is "fat" and to "lose weight" -- so you plan to implement that suggestion by cutting off a leg? Measurements exist for a reason. You have to use your own judgment to interpret them.

ahoyhere 16y ago

Not true at all. I design heavily interactive apps and my husband, Thomas, wrote the first OSS JavaScript animation library (Scriptaculous). We consistently push boundaries. It's what we do :) But for a good example of how to do heavily interactive, shiny, Javascripty apps, look at our work on http://twistori.com http://twistori.com http://letsfreckle.com http://letsfreckle.com http://pepsicozeitgeist.com http://pepsicozeitgeist.com etc :) not to mention Scriptaculous, Scripty2, Zepto, etc. And test their performance versus others. Yep, making heavily interactive, heavy graphical web apps is a trade-off. That's why you have to know every single little thing that can slow things down, and then you have to make the decision which you can get away with and which you can't. Thus our suggestions are quite strict! For more information, you might enjoy our book: http://jsrocks.com http://jsrocks.com :)

btipling 16y ago
Well what do you think would score better given your tool, a page with basic HTML or google docs? Ok that's not a fair question, but the problem is with the suggestions, it suggests you to move toward a blank page. With nothing on it. With the exception of maybe letsfreckle, those apps you mentioned are shiny and have some dynamicism, but they are not heavy client side apps. I can't see how letsfreckle performs on your tool given it has a paywall and there's no demo. Having said that, I do want to read your book. I'll check it out.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  So, what you're saying is, if our tool says your web app is "fat" and to "lose weight" -- so you plan to implement that suggestion by cutting off a leg? Measurements exist for a reason. You have to use your own judgment to interpret them.