4 ms·
> The only thing that might is a wholesale different client architecture that sacrifices features and polish to provide the slimmest code possible. That is, an
by yawaramin 3y ago
> The only thing that might is a wholesale different client architecture that sacrifices features and polish to provide the slimmest code possible. That is, an alternate "lite/basic" mode. Unfortunately, this style of approach has rarely proved successful
But it is gaining popularity with the unexpected rise of htmx and its 'simpler is better even if it's slightly worse' philosophy.
- golergka 3y agoIsn't that 'worse is better' philosophy?
- LoganDark 3y agoI think it's rather a "performance is more important than functionality" philosophy.
- yawaramin 3y agoIn the case of the devices we're talking about, performance is effectively functionality.
- LoganDark 3y agoMy point exactly. By making your website fast and light, you make it easier and more pleasant to use. HTMX has a limited set of actions that it supports, so it can't do everything that people typically want. It can do more than enough though. (remember websites that actually used the `<form>` element?)
- lukan 3y agoThe most performant site is a blank page.
- sussmannbaka 3y agoGood news for bloated JS SPAs, since that is often what they look like :)
- fuzzfactor 3y agoAstute observation. It should be easy to use this as a "north star" and your only job is to not screw it up hardly at all. Some people are just worse screw-ups than others.