4 ms·

This is such a depressing comment. It's the opposite of the hacker spirit. The web has made it easier than ever to discourage people from trying anything new.

This is such a depressing comment. It's the opposite of the hacker spirit. The web has made it easier than ever to discourage people from trying anything new. New ideas seem like bad ideas, because otherwise people would be doing them. One could imagine your objection applying to React: "What a horrible idea. It's a nice hack, but under no circumstances should you actually build webpages like this. Webpages are built out of HTML and valid JavaScript, which this is not..."

ryanbrunner 6y ago
I think the difference is that nothing in React is abusing fault tolerance in a browser to the extent that this is. This very specifically works only because browsers don't generally care that an HTML page is anything close to valid HTML. There's no guarantee at all that this will continue to be the case, and it's resonable to assume that some browser in the future might decide to do render things that are very clearly a JSON document as a JSON document instead - fundamentally breaking the core architecture of your system. React is a different approach, but it plays by the rules and doesn't serve invalid HTML or Javascript.
- silvester23 6y ago
  In fact, at least Firefox already has support for displaying JSON files. I assume this does not happen here because eventually, there actually is an <html> tag.
  - jacob019 6y ago
    Content-Type header.
chrismorgan 6y ago
I’m going to double down here. React and its ilk were designed for use in apps, where there are meaningful advantages in powering things entirely with client-side scripting rather than generating server-side HTML and possibly enhancing it on the client side with scripting. They were then abused by increasingly many people for rendering static content, things like blogs. These people were using the wrong tool for the job, and it has had a detrimental effect on the web. Now, pages are regularly far heavier than before with expensive client-side code to do stuff that should have been done server-side in almost all cases, and it became popular enough that search engines eventually had to cave and introduce a full JavaScript execution environment in their indexers, tooling everywhere got a lot more complicated, and the last state of the web was worse than the first. There is a place for things like React: in rich apps, and perhaps even for server-side rendering, though I’m not fond of that for things like blogs because it encourages you to end up depending on it on the client side too. But client-side JavaScript app frameworks made some formerly-impossible things possible, and formerly-complex-and-unmaintainable things tractable. This monstrosity, on the other hand, offers no actual benefits for the user, and does introduce a few new problems (quirks mode for styling, and an unnecessary dependency on JavaScript). And so I say it should never be exposed to the client side. Use it as an input format for your blog generator if you like, but don’t try shipping a wonky JSON/HTML polyglot directly.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Look. We're on a Show HN. You call his work a monstrosity with no benefits for the user. You call it an abomination. When you've used up all your insults, what's left? What are you going to call something deserving of hate? It's so petty and bitter, and you need to go have fun with something. Go play! As for your React commentary, it's 4:42am my friend, and I was just sad to see someone take such a hot steamy dump on someone's work on a Show HN thread without a single other person standing up for them. But all of your points about React can be summed up as "well, yes, that's what happens when something is successful: history is rewritten to make it seem like it had a place from the beginning." If someone was like "Show HN: React - a new way to write websites," it feels like a guarantee you'd be right there like "But it breaks when you turn off Javascript!" Meanwhile, even Tor admitted defeat long ago and enabled JS by default.
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    I’m specifically objecting because of the text “I'm creating a blog platform using this concept” and what else the author is saying here. As a technical demonstration, it’s fine—various people don’t realise you can do things like this, and I’m all in favour of showing people these sorts of things, as it does get people thinking in interesting ways. But the author seems to think that this is a good idea, which I’m afraid it’s just not, so I can’t mince words—though perhaps I have expressed myself a bit more strongly than is seemly (thank you for pulling me up on that). Of React (and its ilk: React was by no means the first project along these lines; as an example, I can think of having hit a couple of full JS-required Knockout sites well before React was a thing, where they would have been better as prerendered HTML), I’m not saying that history was rewritten to say it had a place from the beginning, but rather that there was a place for it from the beginning: that there is a certain type of app where there are very substantial benefits for the user in doing at least some parts on the client side (that was where the jQuery style of progressive enhancement started, and then things like Backbone steadily expanded it), and then that architecturally there are substantial benefits to going all in on client-side rendering if you need this sort of enhancement (this was what Knockout tended towards, and what ExtJS and React more fully realised)—but that this had costs, too, in that it broke the traditional model, making life harder for all kinds of tooling and making pages heavier, so that it shouldn’t be used everywhere. React was not initially intended as a way to write web sites, but rather web apps. It’s an important distinction. For apps like Facebook and Twitter, the advantages of server-side rendering were not so applicable, and the benefits of full client-side rendering more marked. Unfortunately, the SPA craze grew further, and people liked using one tool everywhere, and so it became more and more common to use React in places where it was inappropriate at the time; until finally tooling like search engines caved on the whole JavaScript thing. I still don’t like how often I find normal websites depending on JavaScript for fundamental rendering (it may not surprise you to discover that I browse with JavaScript disabled by default—mostly for performance and minimisation of annoyances), but at least React has purpose and some advantages, and has done from the start. Meanwhile, this thing here doesn’t get you any of the benefits of client-side rendering (things like lighter and faster subsequent page loads and transitions, by using AJAX and semantic knowledge), but does carry all of the costs of client-side rendering: poorer performance, and making life harder for tooling of all kinds.
cubic 6y ago
The primary reason for calling it an abomination is that if they actually plan on having this used (especially if by other people) it will spectacularly break the moment Chrome decides to make their quirks mode more strict. It's a fun hack, although not exactly very unique. See also the very old by now "Website in a PNG file" concept, which does the exact same thing: https://gist.github.com/gasman/2560551 https://gist.github.com/gasman/2560551
- zeven7 6y ago
  This will never break. I still think it's a bad idea, but not for that reason. Browser vendors are strongly against ever making backwards incompatible changes - especially a change like this that would likely affect thousands of websites. Chrome is not going to suddenly make their HTML rendering engine more strict.
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    Yeah, it’s certainly not fragile in that way. The quirks mode thing is actually one of my lesser concerns about it.
toyg 6y ago
This is just a bad idea. Apart from abusing browser rendering quirks (which is unfortunately a sad tradition of the web, something that has claimed the life of entire technology stacks like xml/xhtml), it removes any hope of producing webpages accessible from screen readers and similar. In comparison, JS-only pages look like model citizens. This is the equivalent of abusing IE hot-comments and other CSS-parsing bugs to style your website, but worse (at least that technique was useful).
- Spivak 6y ago
  If JS generated sites can support ARIA then I don't really see why this couldn't do the same thing since it's just a JS site with a funky initial payload. The "fun" of this site is that it's its own API. Sure there are better ways to accomplish this but abusing quirks for fun and profit is the hacker spirit.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  Heh, now I have to defend this thing! So long as the JavaScript executes, this doesn’t actually harm accessibility: as it loads, it slurps the JSON, and turns it into a perfectly normal web page; rather like XSLT, as others have pointed out. And quirks mode isn’t that serious a problem. It’s a mild nuisance at most, really. But I do agree with your last sentence.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Hacking is mostly playing around and using things in ways the designer didn't imagine at the time. This is a good hack. It brings a smile to the face and warms the heart (if a good hack is what you were looking for). And I think that was the point anyway, not to come up with a professional architectural pattern.
- 93po 6y ago
  I disagree with this removing any hope of accessibility. If anything it brings hope for websites to be more accessible than ever before. Imagine a screen reader that instantly and flawlessly knows which content to read and how to navigate through it? If a consistent JSON format is adopted and used this would be a reality.
peey 6y ago
But what do you think one gains by serving json instead of serving valid html like a body with just `<data src="actual.json"></data>`? If you can retain full functionality (and hack on your ideas) AND be standards compliant (to make sure someone who decides to start offering a new web browser doesn't have to worry about 10% of websites serving this instead of valid HTML), then you should do that.
sequoia 6y ago
You're both right. Suggesting other people try your blog built on this platform is giving people bad advice, and the comment you're replying to is overly negative. I think the thing that's annoying is trying to sell other people on using such a tool. Anyone crazy enough to try it should jump right in, but don't try to talk people into it as an actual good blog option. I call this sort of project "linux on a wristwatch." It's totally cool and a fun hack, but there's no real utility to it beyond an art piece.
LockAndLol 6y ago
I agree with you. People should just explore the possibilities that exist to the fullest, harmless extent. There's no harm in this. Along the way, they might find something entirely new. Blocking off that path with "don't ever do this" is just closed-minded. It's a good thing people exist that aren't deterred by gatekeeping comments like these and actually try to innovate or simply play around and have fun with programming.

ryanbrunner 6y ago

I think the difference is that nothing in React is abusing fault tolerance in a browser to the extent that this is. This very specifically works only because browsers don't generally care that an HTML page is anything close to valid HTML. There's no guarantee at all that this will continue to be the case, and it's resonable to assume that some browser in the future might decide to do render things that are very clearly a JSON document as a JSON document instead - fundamentally breaking the core architecture of your system. React is a different approach, but it plays by the rules and doesn't serve invalid HTML or Javascript.

silvester23 6y ago
In fact, at least Firefox already has support for displaying JSON files. I assume this does not happen here because eventually, there actually is an <html> tag.
- jacob019 6y ago
  Content-Type header.

chrismorgan 6y ago

I’m going to double down here. React and its ilk were designed for use in apps, where there are meaningful advantages in powering things entirely with client-side scripting rather than generating server-side HTML and possibly enhancing it on the client side with scripting. They were then abused by increasingly many people for rendering static content, things like blogs. These people were using the wrong tool for the job, and it has had a detrimental effect on the web. Now, pages are regularly far heavier than before with expensive client-side code to do stuff that should have been done server-side in almost all cases, and it became popular enough that search engines eventually had to cave and introduce a full JavaScript execution environment in their indexers, tooling everywhere got a lot more complicated, and the last state of the web was worse than the first. There is a place for things like React: in rich apps, and perhaps even for server-side rendering, though I’m not fond of that for things like blogs because it encourages you to end up depending on it on the client side too. But client-side JavaScript app frameworks made some formerly-impossible things possible, and formerly-complex-and-unmaintainable things tractable. This monstrosity, on the other hand, offers no actual benefits for the user, and does introduce a few new problems (quirks mode for styling, and an unnecessary dependency on JavaScript). And so I say it should never be exposed to the client side. Use it as an input format for your blog generator if you like, but don’t try shipping a wonky JSON/HTML polyglot directly.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Look. We're on a Show HN. You call his work a monstrosity with no benefits for the user. You call it an abomination. When you've used up all your insults, what's left? What are you going to call something deserving of hate? It's so petty and bitter, and you need to go have fun with something. Go play! As for your React commentary, it's 4:42am my friend, and I was just sad to see someone take such a hot steamy dump on someone's work on a Show HN thread without a single other person standing up for them. But all of your points about React can be summed up as "well, yes, that's what happens when something is successful: history is rewritten to make it seem like it had a place from the beginning." If someone was like "Show HN: React - a new way to write websites," it feels like a guarantee you'd be right there like "But it breaks when you turn off Javascript!" Meanwhile, even Tor admitted defeat long ago and enabled JS by default.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  I’m specifically objecting because of the text “I'm creating a blog platform using this concept” and what else the author is saying here. As a technical demonstration, it’s fine—various people don’t realise you can do things like this, and I’m all in favour of showing people these sorts of things, as it does get people thinking in interesting ways. But the author seems to think that this is a good idea, which I’m afraid it’s just not, so I can’t mince words—though perhaps I have expressed myself a bit more strongly than is seemly (thank you for pulling me up on that). Of React (and its ilk: React was by no means the first project along these lines; as an example, I can think of having hit a couple of full JS-required Knockout sites well before React was a thing, where they would have been better as prerendered HTML), I’m not saying that history was rewritten to say it had a place from the beginning, but rather that there was a place for it from the beginning: that there is a certain type of app where there are very substantial benefits for the user in doing at least some parts on the client side (that was where the jQuery style of progressive enhancement started, and then things like Backbone steadily expanded it), and then that architecturally there are substantial benefits to going all in on client-side rendering if you need this sort of enhancement (this was what Knockout tended towards, and what ExtJS and React more fully realised)—but that this had costs, too, in that it broke the traditional model, making life harder for all kinds of tooling and making pages heavier, so that it shouldn’t be used everywhere. React was not initially intended as a way to write web sites, but rather web apps. It’s an important distinction. For apps like Facebook and Twitter, the advantages of server-side rendering were not so applicable, and the benefits of full client-side rendering more marked. Unfortunately, the SPA craze grew further, and people liked using one tool everywhere, and so it became more and more common to use React in places where it was inappropriate at the time; until finally tooling like search engines caved on the whole JavaScript thing. I still don’t like how often I find normal websites depending on JavaScript for fundamental rendering (it may not surprise you to discover that I browse with JavaScript disabled by default—mostly for performance and minimisation of annoyances), but at least React has purpose and some advantages, and has done from the start. Meanwhile, this thing here doesn’t get you any of the benefits of client-side rendering (things like lighter and faster subsequent page loads and transitions, by using AJAX and semantic knowledge), but does carry all of the costs of client-side rendering: poorer performance, and making life harder for tooling of all kinds.

cubic 6y ago

The primary reason for calling it an abomination is that if they actually plan on having this used (especially if by other people) it will spectacularly break the moment Chrome decides to make their quirks mode more strict. It's a fun hack, although not exactly very unique. See also the very old by now "Website in a PNG file" concept, which does the exact same thing: https://gist.github.com/gasman/2560551 https://gist.github.com/gasman/2560551

zeven7 6y ago
This will never break. I still think it's a bad idea, but not for that reason. Browser vendors are strongly against ever making backwards incompatible changes - especially a change like this that would likely affect thousands of websites. Chrome is not going to suddenly make their HTML rendering engine more strict.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  Yeah, it’s certainly not fragile in that way. The quirks mode thing is actually one of my lesser concerns about it.

toyg 6y ago

This is just a bad idea. Apart from abusing browser rendering quirks (which is unfortunately a sad tradition of the web, something that has claimed the life of entire technology stacks like xml/xhtml), it removes any hope of producing webpages accessible from screen readers and similar. In comparison, JS-only pages look like model citizens. This is the equivalent of abusing IE hot-comments and other CSS-parsing bugs to style your website, but worse (at least that technique was useful).

Spivak 6y ago
If JS generated sites can support ARIA then I don't really see why this couldn't do the same thing since it's just a JS site with a funky initial payload. The "fun" of this site is that it's its own API. Sure there are better ways to accomplish this but abusing quirks for fun and profit is the hacker spirit.
chrismorgan 6y ago
Heh, now I have to defend this thing! So long as the JavaScript executes, this doesn’t actually harm accessibility: as it loads, it slurps the JSON, and turns it into a perfectly normal web page; rather like XSLT, as others have pointed out. And quirks mode isn’t that serious a problem. It’s a mild nuisance at most, really. But I do agree with your last sentence.
TimTheTinker 6y ago
Hacking is mostly playing around and using things in ways the designer didn't imagine at the time. This is a good hack. It brings a smile to the face and warms the heart (if a good hack is what you were looking for). And I think that was the point anyway, not to come up with a professional architectural pattern.
93po 6y ago
I disagree with this removing any hope of accessibility. If anything it brings hope for websites to be more accessible than ever before. Imagine a screen reader that instantly and flawlessly knows which content to read and how to navigate through it? If a consistent JSON format is adopted and used this would be a reality.

peey 6y ago

But what do you think one gains by serving json instead of serving valid html like a body with just `<data src="actual.json"></data>`? If you can retain full functionality (and hack on your ideas) AND be standards compliant (to make sure someone who decides to start offering a new web browser doesn't have to worry about 10% of websites serving this instead of valid HTML), then you should do that.

sequoia 6y ago

You're both right. Suggesting other people try your blog built on this platform is giving people bad advice, and the comment you're replying to is overly negative. I think the thing that's annoying is trying to sell other people on using such a tool. Anyone crazy enough to try it should jump right in, but don't try to talk people into it as an actual good blog option. I call this sort of project "linux on a wristwatch." It's totally cool and a fun hack, but there's no real utility to it beyond an art piece.

LockAndLol 6y ago

I agree with you. People should just explore the possibilities that exist to the fullest, harmless extent. There's no harm in this. Along the way, they might find something entirely new. Blocking off that path with "don't ever do this" is just closed-minded. It's a good thing people exist that aren't deterred by gatekeeping comments like these and actually try to innovate or simply play around and have fun with programming.