5 ms·

>Sorry, this site requires JavaScript to be enabled. For a flat blog post? Like, seriously?

naringas 7y ago
welcome to the web 2.0 cooming soon: web assemply web 3.0 which (I fear) might feel a lot like flash web pages from the early 00s. I hope I'm wrong.
- dekalbcountyman 7y ago
  got to get the fuck out of the industry professionally at this point
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  Web 2.0 was like 15 years ago now. Web 2.0 was "supposed" to be about separation of style & content and gracefully degrading JavaScript. I don't know want to call what we have now.
  - lubujackson 7y ago
    Probably the "Web App" or "Web SPA" era, since everything seems to need to be a single page app that exists mostly in the client. There are some benefits, of course. Stable and standardized UI is finally available as a baseline for devs (much like early Windows/iOS software) and all roads are clearly leading toward a unified design model for phone apps/web/desktop. Bloat and needless complexity are the biggest issues at the moment, but all the frameworks seem to be (finally) focusing on becoming more snappy.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Webasm doesn't enable anything new that couldn't already be done right now.
  - naringas 7y ago
    but it will improve the ability to obfuscate webpages
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      I'd probably rather sift through a disassembler than obfuscated JS.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      I was replying to someone saying that webasm will bring flash style webpages.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I had to disable AdGuard to display it.
earthboundkid 7y ago
I’m glad that the JS world is shifting from SPAs to SSR. Using a SPA for a blog is just bad on multiple levels.
- Scarbutt 7y ago
  examples?
- SahAssar 7y ago
  IMO SPA's aren't that bad, but loading large assets from third parties is.
purple_ducks 7y ago
the OP message falls flat when it can't even be bothered to server render. also, most offensive is the use of 3rd party js hosting. given the tiny size of the 3rd party libraries (relative to 1st party code), add them in to the code from your own site (which you're already bundling up. SMH) [from jsdelivr.net] polyfill.min.js (31.8kb/96.8kb) (wire/resource) url-polyfill.min.js (1.9kb/6.1kb) react.production.min.js (4.7kb/12.3kb) react-dom.production.min.js (36kb/116kb) [from liaison.dev] bundle.a7c7d78d57.immutable.js (108kb/375kb) actual website code: https://github.com/liaisonjs/liaison/tree/master/website https://github.com/liaisonjs/liaison/tree/master/website
- u801e 7y ago
  The actual text of the article (not including the table and image) is about 2700 characters long.
- mvila 7y ago
  I don't understand why it is wrong to use CDNs to distribute common libraries. About the fact that I have used Liaison to build its own website, I agree that it might not be the best choice. :) For now, Liaison doesn't support server-side rendering, but it is something that could come eventually.

welcome to the web 2.0 cooming soon: web assemply web 3.0 which (I fear) might feel a lot like flash web pages from the early 00s. I hope I'm wrong.

dekalbcountyman 7y ago
got to get the fuck out of the industry professionally at this point
frenchyatwork 7y ago
Web 2.0 was like 15 years ago now. Web 2.0 was "supposed" to be about separation of style & content and gracefully degrading JavaScript. I don't know want to call what we have now.
- lubujackson 7y ago
  Probably the "Web App" or "Web SPA" era, since everything seems to need to be a single page app that exists mostly in the client. There are some benefits, of course. Stable and standardized UI is finally available as a baseline for devs (much like early Windows/iOS software) and all roads are clearly leading toward a unified design model for phone apps/web/desktop. Bloat and needless complexity are the biggest issues at the moment, but all the frameworks seem to be (finally) focusing on becoming more snappy.
BubRoss 7y ago
Webasm doesn't enable anything new that couldn't already be done right now.
- naringas 7y ago
  but it will improve the ability to obfuscate webpages
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    I'd probably rather sift through a disassembler than obfuscated JS.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    I was replying to someone saying that webasm will bring flash style webpages.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

I had to disable AdGuard to display it.

earthboundkid 7y ago

I’m glad that the JS world is shifting from SPAs to SSR. Using a SPA for a blog is just bad on multiple levels.

Scarbutt 7y ago
examples?
SahAssar 7y ago
IMO SPA's aren't that bad, but loading large assets from third parties is.

purple_ducks 7y ago

the OP message falls flat when it can't even be bothered to server render. also, most offensive is the use of 3rd party js hosting. given the tiny size of the 3rd party libraries (relative to 1st party code), add them in to the code from your own site (which you're already bundling up. SMH) [from jsdelivr.net] polyfill.min.js (31.8kb/96.8kb) (wire/resource) url-polyfill.min.js (1.9kb/6.1kb) react.production.min.js (4.7kb/12.3kb) react-dom.production.min.js (36kb/116kb) [from liaison.dev] bundle.a7c7d78d57.immutable.js (108kb/375kb) actual website code: https://github.com/liaisonjs/liaison/tree/master/website https://github.com/liaisonjs/liaison/tree/master/website

u801e 7y ago
The actual text of the article (not including the table and image) is about 2700 characters long.
mvila 7y ago
I don't understand why it is wrong to use CDNs to distribute common libraries. About the fact that I have used Liaison to build its own website, I agree that it might not be the best choice. :) For now, Liaison doesn't support server-side rendering, but it is something that could come eventually.