4 ms·

If you want site longevity, HTML is the way to go. It's fine if you clients aren't expecting to maintain their website for the next 10 years, go ahead and use t

by SPBS 6y ago

If you want site longevity, HTML is the way to go. It's fine if you clients aren't expecting to maintain their website for the next 10 years, go ahead and use the JavaScript framework. Tell me that React websites today will still be around in 10 years time. With constant upkeep and maintenance, maybe. If a website is just a static website, not making it plain HTML is a disservice. The layers of abstraction will take its toll.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> The layers of abstraction will take its toll. As an industry, this is called job security. It is fascinating to be in an industry where systems requiring high levels of maintenance are preferred by the client.
_waqas_ali_ 6y ago
This only applies to the use case of creating static websites with React. A lot of React websites are dynamic and comparable with websites built using PHP or other server-side frameworks. Even if you write html by hand while using PHP, you still need to maintain the server code and constant upkeep/maintenance will be required.
jjav 6y ago
So much this. There is tremendous value in longevity. Writing content which is guaranteed to be unusable in a few years is anathema to me. On my website I have pages which date back to 1993-94. Still readable just fine. I used to post those links to mailing lists back then and they still get regular hits from people in that community because I've also maintained the URLs constant.
- ehnto 6y ago
  In my personal life I serve HTML, CSS and native, gracefully degrading JS (if any), for the same reasons. In my professional life though, I realised that 95% of the things I build will be changed in the next year or so. We often inherit projects that were only just finished, and our first task is to start changing it entirely. So I aim for robustness of maintenance rather than robustness of the finished product. It's inevitable that it will change, but I can anticipate that in the same way a well engineered car can anticipate it's maintenance cycles.
- choicenotchance 6y ago
  Can you share your website?
chiefalchemist 6y ago
Amen. React is for experiences where there is interaction. A simple read only site (a la WordPress) is not where React belongs. Large entities have need and budget for their applications to evolve. The delta for websites is less intensive. For the latter, reliability and longevity is important.
kall 6y ago
(API-less) react websites today will still be around in 10 years time. The browser has never and likely will never break JS backwards compatibility.
- cpburns2009 6y ago
  Chrome is slowly removing support for synchronous XMLHttpRequests [1] [2]. It's eventual removal could very well break legacy web applications. [1]: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/chrome-80-deps-rems https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/chrome-80-... [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30876093/will-chrome-and-other-browsers-drop-support-for-synchronous-xmlhttprequest https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30876093/will-chrome-and...
mediascreen 6y ago
I feel like all agencies should stay away from JavaScript frameworks unless they are willing to be open with their clients on how much time will go into maintaining the project. My agency regularly take over older JavaScript projects - built in whatever JS-stack was trending at the moment. There are always big parts of the stack that are no longer available or in active development. Not to mention the enormous hassle it is to bring dependencies up to date for a JS-project that hasn't been updated in three years. Depending on the circumstances we usually recommend moving it to a boring CMS like WordPress unless there are compelling reasons to double down on the JavaScript stack (if it really is more of a web application for example.)

by SPBS 6y ago

MattGaiser 6y ago

> The layers of abstraction will take its toll. As an industry, this is called job security. It is fascinating to be in an industry where systems requiring high levels of maintenance are preferred by the client.

_waqas_ali_ 6y ago

This only applies to the use case of creating static websites with React. A lot of React websites are dynamic and comparable with websites built using PHP or other server-side frameworks. Even if you write html by hand while using PHP, you still need to maintain the server code and constant upkeep/maintenance will be required.

jjav 6y ago

So much this. There is tremendous value in longevity. Writing content which is guaranteed to be unusable in a few years is anathema to me. On my website I have pages which date back to 1993-94. Still readable just fine. I used to post those links to mailing lists back then and they still get regular hits from people in that community because I've also maintained the URLs constant.

ehnto 6y ago
In my personal life I serve HTML, CSS and native, gracefully degrading JS (if any), for the same reasons. In my professional life though, I realised that 95% of the things I build will be changed in the next year or so. We often inherit projects that were only just finished, and our first task is to start changing it entirely. So I aim for robustness of maintenance rather than robustness of the finished product. It's inevitable that it will change, but I can anticipate that in the same way a well engineered car can anticipate it's maintenance cycles.
choicenotchance 6y ago
Can you share your website?

chiefalchemist 6y ago

Amen. React is for experiences where there is interaction. A simple read only site (a la WordPress) is not where React belongs. Large entities have need and budget for their applications to evolve. The delta for websites is less intensive. For the latter, reliability and longevity is important.

kall 6y ago

(API-less) react websites today will still be around in 10 years time. The browser has never and likely will never break JS backwards compatibility.

cpburns2009 6y ago
Chrome is slowly removing support for synchronous XMLHttpRequests [1] [2]. It's eventual removal could very well break legacy web applications. [1]: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/chrome-80-deps-rems https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/chrome-80-... [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30876093/will-chrome-and-other-browsers-drop-support-for-synchronous-xmlhttprequest https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30876093/will-chrome-and...

mediascreen 6y ago

I feel like all agencies should stay away from JavaScript frameworks unless they are willing to be open with their clients on how much time will go into maintaining the project. My agency regularly take over older JavaScript projects - built in whatever JS-stack was trending at the moment. There are always big parts of the stack that are no longer available or in active development. Not to mention the enormous hassle it is to bring dependencies up to date for a JS-project that hasn't been updated in three years. Depending on the circumstances we usually recommend moving it to a boring CMS like WordPress unless there are compelling reasons to double down on the JavaScript stack (if it really is more of a web application for example.)