3 ms·
It’s easier, for me, to write websites that require JS. Why should I spend time on that 1 lonely user who browses with JavaScript disables when I could focus on
by hazz99 6y ago
It’s easier, for me, to write websites that require JS. Why should I spend time on that 1 lonely user who browses with JavaScript disables when I could focus on maximising value for the other 100,000?
- jhardy54 6y ago> It’s easier, for me, to write websites that require JS. Why? You can literally just put HTML on a server an start an HTTP server and you're done. How does JavaScript make that easier? > Why should I spend time on that 1 lonely user who browses with JavaScript disables when I could focus on maximising value for the other 100,000? Your webpage will be smaller and faster if you just deliver the HTML. I don't know what your website looks like, but it's not uncommon to see 4 MB of JavaScript transferred just to draw 400 bytes of text on my screen. Moving HTML from your server to my screen is a solved problem, and using JavaScript to do that is just as silly as using Java, Flash, or Silverlight.
- hazz99 6y agoBecause my preferred stack is React and I’m the most productive in it. Insofar that you have reasonable loading times, the fact is 99% of end users don’t care what you use to build software. Use whatever you’re most comfortable with!
- jhardy54 6y agoReact is lovely for interactive applications, but using it for documents is like using a .exe to print some text because you're "most productive" in whatever programming language. You're welcome to distribute your documents in the form of huge JavaScript executables, but you shouldn't be surprised when other developers point out why it's silly (or refuse to run your code).