2 ms·

Please don't take it personally, but the "stack" of Typescript, YAML, bundlers, "compiler chain", REST, GraphQL, JSON, SCSS needed for web-apps is exactly the

Please don't take it personally, but the "stack" of Typescript, YAML, bundlers, "compiler chain", REST, GraphQL, JSON, SCSS needed for web-apps is exactly the kind of nonsense I can do without. I was specifically only talking about HTML which as a generic markup language already has all the means in place to encode any necessary information for rendering - that's the entire purpose of markup.

ThePhysicist 6y ago
Well, you sure can write plain HTML pages without any of the above, just like you can write desktop applications using Assembly. But does it make sense? Not really. Also, it's simply not true that you can specify all rendering information in HTML, there are a lot of things like media queries or pseudo-class selectors like ":hover" that can't be inlined and need to reside in a stylesheet.
striking 6y ago
No one's forcing you to use any of these things. You can use a single tool like https://parceljs.org/ https://parceljs.org/ to get a very complete stack and be off to the races writing good old HTML and CSS by hand while having the ability to pull in new stuff whenever you want. Or you can just not, static HTML/CSS/JS bundles still exist even if they're not so manageable. And you can't encode absolutely everything in HTML. You lose the ability to do stuff like CSS animations, some kinds of responsive design, and otherwise use more interesting selectors that allow you to really make the most of your web browser's renderer. And you can't encode more than the simplest of simple interactivity with it, for which a pinch of vanilla JS can be the cure (not the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink list you provided above). I find it hard to read comments like these as written in good faith. At best this one reads as well-intentioned but missing some crucial part of the understanding somewhere, and at worst the long list of unnecessary and unrelated technologies are intended to make the comment merely appear as if there is some actual deeper understanding.

ThePhysicist 6y ago

Well, you sure can write plain HTML pages without any of the above, just like you can write desktop applications using Assembly. But does it make sense? Not really. Also, it's simply not true that you can specify all rendering information in HTML, there are a lot of things like media queries or pseudo-class selectors like ":hover" that can't be inlined and need to reside in a stylesheet.

striking 6y ago

No one's forcing you to use any of these things. You can use a single tool like https://parceljs.org/ https://parceljs.org/ to get a very complete stack and be off to the races writing good old HTML and CSS by hand while having the ability to pull in new stuff whenever you want. Or you can just not, static HTML/CSS/JS bundles still exist even if they're not so manageable. And you can't encode absolutely everything in HTML. You lose the ability to do stuff like CSS animations, some kinds of responsive design, and otherwise use more interesting selectors that allow you to really make the most of your web browser's renderer. And you can't encode more than the simplest of simple interactivity with it, for which a pinch of vanilla JS can be the cure (not the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink list you provided above). I find it hard to read comments like these as written in good faith. At best this one reads as well-intentioned but missing some crucial part of the understanding somewhere, and at worst the long list of unnecessary and unrelated technologies are intended to make the comment merely appear as if there is some actual deeper understanding.