5 ms·

That us exactly how stuff worked around 2005. And no, you should not do a full form post just to toggle a checkbox.

by littlecranky67 3y ago

yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
Why not?
- valenterry 3y ago
  As a user, I can think if a couple of reason immediately: - I don't like page (re)loads. They are usually slower and more likely to fail, compared to a lightweight request. Especially in scenarios with a bad connection - If they fail, it's harder to retry, I see a connection timeout page. With a SPA I see an error message, potentially with a retry button. Or even better: the SPA retries for me a few times. - I can continue to see all the rest of the page while the action is running - I can potentially start other actions in parallel - I prefer to not lose any progress of things on the side, e.g. text-boxes where I already entered/changed some text - It's easier to inspect what goes wrong by looking at the network tab. Okay, most users don't do that, but for me it's still a pro There are also advantages, but I think nowadays the cons outweight those for me.
  - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
    I’m convinced this is HN-themed satire.
    - 9935c101ab17a66 3y ago
      It seems sincere — unlike your comment, which comes across as very off-hand / dismissive.
      - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        Yeah, sorry, but I just don't agree with the spirit of the comment, and I think it's thinking like this which leads programmers to over-engineer web applications, which usually harms user experience and wastes company money. Absolutist statements like "no, you should not do a full form post just to toggle a checkbox" are just silly. There is no minimum bound beneath which a standard web browser form submission doesn't make sense, and writing extra JavaScript code to not only manage an asynchronous network request but also handle subsequent behaviours for success, failure, timeout, etc., is additional complexity which incurs additional cost and a greater potential for system failure. Sometimes these implementation details and associated costs are necessary, but in most cases they aren't, and it's not an ideal perspective economically to default to the more expensive and complex implementation, especially for dubious benefit.
        littlecranky67 3y ago
        > Absolutist statements like "no, you should not do a full form post just to toggle a checkbox" are just silly That is because you didn't read or accept the frame that I set initially. I was very clearly refering to web apps that are SPAs (not websites!). Within that context, that statement is less absolutist and still true in 95% of the cases.
        valenterry 3y ago
        I mean, you asked a question and I gave some reason that I could think of. How exactly do you "disagree with the spirit of my comment"? If you don't want to hear an answer, maybe you should just not ask.
        9935c101ab17a66 3y ago
        I wasn’t talking about whether you were right or wrong. I was calling you out for being a dick and not contributing constructively to the discussion. You’re talking past people, not taking the time to understand what they’re saying, and then being dismissive when they reply.
        yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  - ativzzz 3y ago
    ruby on rails has been able to do all of this with remote forms for at least 10 years now
    - littlecranky67 3y ago
      Very sceptic that RoR can obtain/interact with the browser push notification API as I stated in my example. You'd have to come up with glue JS code yourself, and that is where it gets messy. Pushnotifications just being one of many APIs that are client-only (and again please, if you don't need to interface with those APIs, then you might not need an SPA in the first place).
    - valenterry 3y ago
      Just because "remote forms" have forms in their name it doesn't mean that they are conceptually the same thing. They are not, so obviously they can achieve those things, but they are built with js.

That us exactly how stuff worked around 2005. And no, you should not do a full form post just to toggle a checkbox.

yakshaving_jgt 3y ago

Why not?

valenterry 3y ago
As a user, I can think if a couple of reason immediately: - I don't like page (re)loads. They are usually slower and more likely to fail, compared to a lightweight request. Especially in scenarios with a bad connection - If they fail, it's harder to retry, I see a connection timeout page. With a SPA I see an error message, potentially with a retry button. Or even better: the SPA retries for me a few times. - I can continue to see all the rest of the page while the action is running - I can potentially start other actions in parallel - I prefer to not lose any progress of things on the side, e.g. text-boxes where I already entered/changed some text - It's easier to inspect what goes wrong by looking at the network tab. Okay, most users don't do that, but for me it's still a pro There are also advantages, but I think nowadays the cons outweight those for me.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  I’m convinced this is HN-themed satire.
  - 9935c101ab17a66 3y ago
    It seems sincere — unlike your comment, which comes across as very off-hand / dismissive.
    - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
      Yeah, sorry, but I just don't agree with the spirit of the comment, and I think it's thinking like this which leads programmers to over-engineer web applications, which usually harms user experience and wastes company money. Absolutist statements like "no, you should not do a full form post just to toggle a checkbox" are just silly. There is no minimum bound beneath which a standard web browser form submission doesn't make sense, and writing extra JavaScript code to not only manage an asynchronous network request but also handle subsequent behaviours for success, failure, timeout, etc., is additional complexity which incurs additional cost and a greater potential for system failure. Sometimes these implementation details and associated costs are necessary, but in most cases they aren't, and it's not an ideal perspective economically to default to the more expensive and complex implementation, especially for dubious benefit.
      - littlecranky67 3y ago
        > Absolutist statements like "no, you should not do a full form post just to toggle a checkbox" are just silly That is because you didn't read or accept the frame that I set initially. I was very clearly refering to web apps that are SPAs (not websites!). Within that context, that statement is less absolutist and still true in 95% of the cases.
      - valenterry 3y ago
        I mean, you asked a question and I gave some reason that I could think of. How exactly do you "disagree with the spirit of my comment"? If you don't want to hear an answer, maybe you should just not ask.
      - 9935c101ab17a66 3y ago
        I wasn’t talking about whether you were right or wrong. I was calling you out for being a dick and not contributing constructively to the discussion. You’re talking past people, not taking the time to understand what they’re saying, and then being dismissive when they reply.
        yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
- ativzzz 3y ago
  ruby on rails has been able to do all of this with remote forms for at least 10 years now
  - littlecranky67 3y ago
    Very sceptic that RoR can obtain/interact with the browser push notification API as I stated in my example. You'd have to come up with glue JS code yourself, and that is where it gets messy. Pushnotifications just being one of many APIs that are client-only (and again please, if you don't need to interface with those APIs, then you might not need an SPA in the first place).
  - valenterry 3y ago
    Just because "remote forms" have forms in their name it doesn't mean that they are conceptually the same thing. They are not, so obviously they can achieve those things, but they are built with js.