3 ms·

That's not quite what the article is talking about. The article is complaining not about the use of the Web to write/host apps, but about the unnecessary use o

That's not quite what the article is talking about. The article is complaining not about the use of the Web to write/host apps, but about the unnecessary use of app-writing functionality (aka JS) to "enhance" documents or to reimplement browser document-reading functionality. If you're writing an app, write an app. If you're writing a news article, write a news article.

enobrev 5y ago
That's clearly stated, but not well supported by our experience. I agree that many sites are poorly implemented because they're trying to replace browser functionality with poorer versions written in JavaScript. This can be the fault of the service, host, or developer behind the site. But browsers have not been improving their ability to serve documents. Besides maybe initial load times (and fewer ads, whizzes, and pops), I get no significant benefit to reading an article with no JavaScript. I don't get a searchable cache of my document history. I don't get to swipe it over to some other device to continue reading without relying upon some other service. I don't get some guarantee that the document will render on any device and that I can send the document to someone else without a url. I can't highlight or add notes to a document or make corrections and view my (or others') versions of it. Sure, they're documents, and so I should be able to treat them as such. But I can't. They're not portable. Browsers aren't really great for document management or manipulation. Static sites are just as tied to the browser and host as any app.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  I think you're making the case that the web is a program-first medium and not a document-first medium. Is that correct? While I largely agree that dumb documents aren't that useful, I'd say a large part of our actual web interaction is still just dumb documents with some form of response (like what I'm doing here, or site comments, as others do). That's not to diminish actual applications which are made much easier by the web's distribution model, like Google Maps or Google Docs.
  - enobrev 5y ago
    Not quite, but I appreciate you for asking for a clarification. The web is absolutely document-first. Our applications are _still_ just documents, which is pretty incredible. I just don't think it's very good at being document-first. A sufficiently advanced document-first platform would have a lot more functionality in regards to reading, modifying, maintaining, and sharing documents. As far as any consumer is concerned, a basic note-taking app provides more functional use than a web browser. That may be the reason it's become better known as a kludged together application platform derived from layers upon layers of workarounds - around a substandard document viewer with amazing plugin support. If I'm making any point at all, it's that I don't accept the premise of the original post. The web isn't as good at serving documents as we tend to say it is, but it's become quite the application platform, because everyone seems to want it to be one. So who cares if people make crappy pages using JS when it isn't ideal?
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      I think we're pretty much in agreement here. I'll add that I think the web could have been a _better_ document (and application!) platform had folks separated the usecases early on instead of the piecemeal development that we have going on now.
tomjen3 5y ago
The problem is if you want to write a news article about some tax policy and want to include sliders to let readers explore the likely outcomes, or a COVID article where you can see the difference between an r of 1.1 and of 1.14 you are making a much better news article, but you still need to write code.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > If your page includes a few non-essential scripts to do different things on the page, that isn't a problem. The document itself is still readable in a wide variety of programs and formats, regardless of support for those scripts.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I would argue that the difference between the news article with and without the scripts is in fact pretty big.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      I think you over estimate how many people would use the sliders. Or how many news sites have anything more interactive than video ever. And text the length of a news article should have something worth reading without the sliders.

enobrev 5y ago

That's clearly stated, but not well supported by our experience. I agree that many sites are poorly implemented because they're trying to replace browser functionality with poorer versions written in JavaScript. This can be the fault of the service, host, or developer behind the site. But browsers have not been improving their ability to serve documents. Besides maybe initial load times (and fewer ads, whizzes, and pops), I get no significant benefit to reading an article with no JavaScript. I don't get a searchable cache of my document history. I don't get to swipe it over to some other device to continue reading without relying upon some other service. I don't get some guarantee that the document will render on any device and that I can send the document to someone else without a url. I can't highlight or add notes to a document or make corrections and view my (or others') versions of it. Sure, they're documents, and so I should be able to treat them as such. But I can't. They're not portable. Browsers aren't really great for document management or manipulation. Static sites are just as tied to the browser and host as any app.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
I think you're making the case that the web is a program-first medium and not a document-first medium. Is that correct? While I largely agree that dumb documents aren't that useful, I'd say a large part of our actual web interaction is still just dumb documents with some form of response (like what I'm doing here, or site comments, as others do). That's not to diminish actual applications which are made much easier by the web's distribution model, like Google Maps or Google Docs.
- enobrev 5y ago
  Not quite, but I appreciate you for asking for a clarification. The web is absolutely document-first. Our applications are _still_ just documents, which is pretty incredible. I just don't think it's very good at being document-first. A sufficiently advanced document-first platform would have a lot more functionality in regards to reading, modifying, maintaining, and sharing documents. As far as any consumer is concerned, a basic note-taking app provides more functional use than a web browser. That may be the reason it's become better known as a kludged together application platform derived from layers upon layers of workarounds - around a substandard document viewer with amazing plugin support. If I'm making any point at all, it's that I don't accept the premise of the original post. The web isn't as good at serving documents as we tend to say it is, but it's become quite the application platform, because everyone seems to want it to be one. So who cares if people make crappy pages using JS when it isn't ideal?
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    I think we're pretty much in agreement here. I'll add that I think the web could have been a _better_ document (and application!) platform had folks separated the usecases early on instead of the piecemeal development that we have going on now.

tomjen3 5y ago

The problem is if you want to write a news article about some tax policy and want to include sliders to let readers explore the likely outcomes, or a COVID article where you can see the difference between an r of 1.1 and of 1.14 you are making a much better news article, but you still need to write code.

pseudalopex 5y ago
> If your page includes a few non-essential scripts to do different things on the page, that isn't a problem. The document itself is still readable in a wide variety of programs and formats, regardless of support for those scripts.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  I would argue that the difference between the news article with and without the scripts is in fact pretty big.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    I think you over estimate how many people would use the sliders. Or how many news sites have anything more interactive than video ever. And text the length of a news article should have something worth reading without the sliders.