3 ms·

> it would be better to accept that and implement the things that are needed to make the browser a non-awful application runtime It absolutely would not. Every

> it would be better to accept that and implement the things that are needed to make the browser a non-awful application runtime It absolutely would not. Everything doesn't need to (and should not) be an app. Most interactions online can and should be handled (for a human at least) as document exchange. App != better, app == worse (more random non-necessary complexity). I'm inclined to dis-believe your other claims, as well. Those are pretty broad strokes for a litany of devices, runtimes, etc. "Screenreader"? Ha, which version, what OS, which device, etc. Just because you haven't seen the plethora of devices and use cases you support, doesn't mean they don't exist, at any rate your claims are baseless without more evidence.

lmm 3y ago
> Everything doesn't need to (and should not) be an app. Most interactions online can and should be handled (for a human at least) as document exchange. App != better, app == worse (more random non-necessary complexity). I don't like it any more than you do, but the fact is that the web as a document platform has failed. The overwhelming majority of web use is app style, even for things that "should" fit into the document paradigm. Facebook or Twitter posts? Loaded via AJAX and rendered by an engine they've written in JavaScript. Article on any major news site? Ditto. Webmail? Ditto. Blog? Editor pages definitely, unless it's an old WordPress that hasn't updated, and there's a decent chance even the posts work that way too. Even web forums are moving there. > I'm inclined to dis-believe your other claims, as well. Those are pretty broad strokes for a litany of devices, runtimes, etc. "Screenreader"? Ha, which version, what OS, which device, etc. Just because you haven't seen the plethora of devices and use cases you support, doesn't mean they don't exist, at any rate your claims are baseless without more evidence. Right back at you. If you really cared about performance, or accessibility, you'd have benchmarks and test cases. If you don't have any, you don't have any real basis for thinking that using more CSS and less JavaScript makes your site better. (If you have actually found cases where CSS etc. help, I am interested, FWIW - it doesn't match my experience, but it's always good to learn more)
- smaudet 3y ago
  > Facebook or Twitter posts? Loaded via AJAX and rendered by an engine they've written in JavaScript. Article on any major news site? Ditto. Webmail? Ditto. Blog? Editor pages definitely, unless it's an old WordPress that hasn't updated, and there's a decent chance even the posts work that way too. Even web forums are moving there. Don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use. Actually I did use media-wiki, that was quite refreshingly simple. Worked on a phone that is going on 10 years old. In comparison, big-name web-app stuff like Expedia, Discourse, Discord, Teams, News that uses lots of JS like you claim works like utter trash. > If you have actually found cases where CSS etc. help, I am interested, FWIW The off-the-cuff example was AMP pages (which has different issues), but basically worked by heavily, heavily restricting what pages could do at all. Like, e.g. Javascript. I'm sure I could find more, and even get benchmarks. Your turn.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > Don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use. Actually I did use media-wiki, that was quite refreshingly simple. Worked on a phone that is going on 10 years old. Well good for you, but approximately no-one's using that. So evidently it's not working out great. > In comparison, big-name web-app stuff like Expedia, Discourse, Discord, Teams, News that uses lots of JS like you claim works like utter trash. And yet that stuff is a lot more popular. So even with the issues, JS-heavy sites are inevitable. Which sites manage to be both popular and usable? The very sites that dive all the way into an application approach: Google Maps, Twitch, Trello before Atlassian ruined it. Half-assing it with progressive enhancement etc. is doing more harm than good. > The off-the-cuff example was AMP pages (which has different issues), but basically worked by heavily, heavily restricting what pages could do at all. Like, e.g. Javascript. They also severely restricted CSS. And, even with all that, they didn't work very well; one might even say they were a lot more effective at blocking non-Google ad tracking than they were at making web pages faster. > I'm sure I could find more, and even get benchmarks. > Your turn. Uh huh. I'm also sure I could find examples and get benchmarks. Right back at you.
    - smaudet 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

> Everything doesn't need to (and should not) be an app. Most interactions online can and should be handled (for a human at least) as document exchange. App != better, app == worse (more random non-necessary complexity). I don't like it any more than you do, but the fact is that the web as a document platform has failed. The overwhelming majority of web use is app style, even for things that "should" fit into the document paradigm. Facebook or Twitter posts? Loaded via AJAX and rendered by an engine they've written in JavaScript. Article on any major news site? Ditto. Webmail? Ditto. Blog? Editor pages definitely, unless it's an old WordPress that hasn't updated, and there's a decent chance even the posts work that way too. Even web forums are moving there. > I'm inclined to dis-believe your other claims, as well. Those are pretty broad strokes for a litany of devices, runtimes, etc. "Screenreader"? Ha, which version, what OS, which device, etc. Just because you haven't seen the plethora of devices and use cases you support, doesn't mean they don't exist, at any rate your claims are baseless without more evidence. Right back at you. If you really cared about performance, or accessibility, you'd have benchmarks and test cases. If you don't have any, you don't have any real basis for thinking that using more CSS and less JavaScript makes your site better. (If you have actually found cases where CSS etc. help, I am interested, FWIW - it doesn't match my experience, but it's always good to learn more)

smaudet 3y ago
> Facebook or Twitter posts? Loaded via AJAX and rendered by an engine they've written in JavaScript. Article on any major news site? Ditto. Webmail? Ditto. Blog? Editor pages definitely, unless it's an old WordPress that hasn't updated, and there's a decent chance even the posts work that way too. Even web forums are moving there. Don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use. Actually I did use media-wiki, that was quite refreshingly simple. Worked on a phone that is going on 10 years old. In comparison, big-name web-app stuff like Expedia, Discourse, Discord, Teams, News that uses lots of JS like you claim works like utter trash. > If you have actually found cases where CSS etc. help, I am interested, FWIW The off-the-cuff example was AMP pages (which has different issues), but basically worked by heavily, heavily restricting what pages could do at all. Like, e.g. Javascript. I'm sure I could find more, and even get benchmarks. Your turn.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use, don't use. Actually I did use media-wiki, that was quite refreshingly simple. Worked on a phone that is going on 10 years old. Well good for you, but approximately no-one's using that. So evidently it's not working out great. > In comparison, big-name web-app stuff like Expedia, Discourse, Discord, Teams, News that uses lots of JS like you claim works like utter trash. And yet that stuff is a lot more popular. So even with the issues, JS-heavy sites are inevitable. Which sites manage to be both popular and usable? The very sites that dive all the way into an application approach: Google Maps, Twitch, Trello before Atlassian ruined it. Half-assing it with progressive enhancement etc. is doing more harm than good. > The off-the-cuff example was AMP pages (which has different issues), but basically worked by heavily, heavily restricting what pages could do at all. Like, e.g. Javascript. They also severely restricted CSS. And, even with all that, they didn't work very well; one might even say they were a lot more effective at blocking non-Google ad tracking than they were at making web pages faster. > I'm sure I could find more, and even get benchmarks. > Your turn. Uh huh. I'm also sure I could find examples and get benchmarks. Right back at you.
  - smaudet 3y ago