2 ms·
> "The more libraries incorporated into the website, the more fragile it becomes" is just fundamentally untrue in a world where you're self-hosting all of your
by est31 7y ago
> "The more libraries incorporated into the website, the more fragile it becomes" is just fundamentally untrue in a world where you're self-hosting all of your scripts.
There are more problems though. older library versions might be vulnerable to XSS attacks, or use features removed by browsers in the future for security reasons (eval?). Or you might want to change something involving how you use the API but the docs are long gone. Generally, libraries imply complexity and when it comes to reliability, complexity will always be your enemy.
- rodw 7y agoAlso unless you're very diligent about semantic markup and separation of content, presentation, interaction logic, the more complicated s site is the more difficult it is to port. I have run into this problem trying to migrate very old web pages or blog posts off of SaaS sites that are shutting down or just decaying. It's not just that complicated sites make it difficult to extract the content in the first place; it's difficult to publish that content on another site in a high-fidelity, and sometimes even readable, way. The hard part isn't keeping the old site (page) running (although that's not always easy either). The hard part is when you want to do something _else_ with that content -- more complicated means less (easily) flexible.