3 ms·
Yet another thing that Hanselman and I disagree on. The problem is not HTML/JS minification. Everyone agrees that's a good thing, even though it effectively br
by jinushaun 15y ago
Yet another thing that Hanselman and I disagree on.
The problem is not HTML/JS minification. Everyone agrees that's a good thing, even though it effectively breaks "view source".
No, the problem I have is that he uses this to defend WebForms and the ViewState. Google has its own "WebForms" in the form of GWT, but that doesn't make WebForms any more OK. The problem with WebForms was that it was too far of an abstraction from the underlying HTML and Javascript underneath that developers spent more time working around WebForms than with it. That hurts the developer. The garbage that WebForms produces is not the same thing as minified HTML and Javascript, especially since the ViewState can bog down each request with extra data if you're not careful. Post backs aren't free in ASP.NET using WebForms and the ViewState. Regular HTML is not hard to develop for or debug, but WebForms makes it difficult enough to require a debugger. With regular HTML, you can develop with plain text and publish minified text so "view source" isn't broken during development.
- arctangent 15y agoI don't know ASP.net all that well since I'm the open source skunkworks guy in my organisation. But sometime I look at applications produced by our ICT department and I notice that they carry a whole load of crap in this ViewState thing. I'm only vaguely aware of what it does, which is apparently more than ICT do because lots of weird behaviour happens when you use the back button in the browser. Coming back to the actual point: I don't care what your source code looks like when it's sent to my browser. Presumably the developer features of modern browsers should be able to show/export a cleaned up version of the source? I've never checked since I only look at my own pages, which are of course beautifully indented...