4 ms·

> 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. Blo

> 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
  > I'm also sure I could find examples and get benchmarks. Right back at you. I've provided examples. Your "examples" are to say that yes, it sucks, no JS isn't better, but you won't provide any examples to support your claim that JS is better. I can't take you seriously at this point.

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
> I'm also sure I could find examples and get benchmarks. Right back at you. I've provided examples. Your "examples" are to say that yes, it sucks, no JS isn't better, but you won't provide any examples to support your claim that JS is better. I can't take you seriously at this point.