6 ms·

I think "single HTML file" sets up a certain expectation that a five-thousand-line long HTML file with ~3500 lines of embedded JS doesn't really live up to. I m

by johnfn 2y ago

I think "single HTML file" sets up a certain expectation that a five-thousand-line long HTML file with ~3500 lines of embedded JS doesn't really live up to. I mean, hey, everything can be a single HTML file if you embed the bundle inline in your HTML! Cool project, though - don't mean to take away anything from it.

lelandbatey 2y ago
If I can actually hit "ctrl-s" and save it offline, that's a huge and worthwhile feature that meaningfully changes how I can interact with the project; it's not purely a fluff description.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  That will probably never work easily in any secure browser. I think at the very least you would have to go: ctrl+s, dialog opens hopefully at the right directory you want to store in, enter/return.
  - hu3 2y ago
    Are you serious?
    - lagrange77 2y ago
      What's wrong with that statement? Can you access the filesystem without a dialog?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - hu3 2y ago
        It's pure useless pedantry. Imagine the abysmal signal to noise ratio if discussions went like that more often.
        bowsamic 2y ago
        It’s not pedantry at all, he’s highlighting a major usability issue
      - rpdillon 2y ago
        The point is that you can save the file and then use it offline. The exact set of clicks to make that happen are completely irrelevant to the core point.
        zelphirkalt 2y ago
        So when you save a document in any popular word processing program, and every time you save it, a dialog would pop up asking you where to save it ... You wouldn't find that annoying at all, do I understand that correctly?
        rpdillon 2y ago
        Your line of questioning is based on an incorrect set of assumptions. The number of clicks is an implementation detail. It depends on whether or not you're using the web file API, some browser download capability, a browser plug-in, a mobile app, desktop app, a webdav server, or something else. For people trying it for the first time, they often have the experience you're describing. But for most anybody that actually picks this up and uses it on a day-to-day basis, they use something else that saves transparently and automatically. All of this is orthogonal to whether or not it's in a single HTML file. I fear you took lelandbatey's original ctrl-s reference a bit more literally than intended, though if you want to be pedantic, I can confirm I use applications in this style all day as part of my daily workflow and I do press ctrl-s and it saves with no further interaction in fully patched versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari with no plugins whatsoever.
        zelphirkalt 2y ago
        Would you be so kind to share how you manage to get them to save without further interaction? That would really add usability. Maybe I did take the ctrl+s too literally, but being pedantic was not my intention. Merely hinting at this usability issue. So a solution would be very welcome. (And I am not the one downvoting you, in fact I couldn't even.) As an aside: I do find these applications very interesting and am considering to make use of Nullboard myself, but also am weighing it against simply using org mode in Emacs and am looking for any advantage it might offer. Of course the ctrl+s issue plays a role there as well.
  - Bjartr 2y ago
    The message you're replying to did not mean that "ctrl-s" is literally the only input, but implied the whole file saving workflow that begins with "ctrl-s". The fact that you're pointing out that the other interpretation is ridiculous is enough of a context clue to realize they're not likely to be saying that.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
What about "single HTML file" sets up an expectation about size? I'm genuinely confused. They seem like nearly unrelated concepts—this isn't a project about trying to fit a kanban board into a kilobyte or anything like that.
- crazymao 2y ago
  Why mention it when any project can technically be turned into a single html file? In my opinion there is an expectation of simplicity and as a result a small size with that statement.
  - hu3 2y ago
    Turning a large project into a single HTML file results in a mess. Very different than a project that was made to be a single HTML file from the start.
  - pseudosavant 2y ago
    The simplicity isn't in editing it, which most users never will do. It is in that you can drop a single file anywhere and not worry about its dependencies.
- johnfn 2y ago
  I think there are reasonable expectations around code quality that most projects adhere to, e.g.: - Split JS out from HTML, split CSS out from HTML - Keep files reasonably small So if I read "Single HTML file" I'd expect around a couple hundred lines at most, possibly with some embedded CSS. It's kind of like saying "I've solved your problem in one line of JS" but then your line of JS is 1000 characters long and is actually 50 statements separated by semicolons. Yes, technically you're not lying, but I was expecting when you said "one line of JS" that it would be roughly the size and shape of a typical line of JS found in the wild.
  - barnabee 2y ago
    IMO those expectations are not reasonable at all given the description of the software; they sound more like anti-goals. When I see “single HTML file” it conjures up the same expectations as when PocketBase[0] describes itself as an “Open Source backend in 1 file”. That is that I can copy that file (and nothing else) somewhere and open/run it, and the application will function correctly. No internet connection, no external "assets" needed, and definitely no server. This mode of distribution, along with offline and local-first software, avoiding susbscriptions and third party / cloud dependencies, etc. all appeal to me very much. So far I'm impressed, I appreciate the nice, dense and uncluttered UI out of the box and it seems to cover enough functionality to be useful. I'll definitely look out for a chance to give it a spin on something real. [0] which I also think is great
rpdillon 2y ago
I totally understand your take, but as a guy that spends most of his time on side projects working on single HTML files, I have a different perspective. I find the totally self-contained nature of them very appealing because it travels well through space and time, and it's incredibly accessible, both online and offline. My current side project is actually using a WebDAV server to host a wide variety of different single HTML file apps that you can carry around on a USB drive or host on the web. The main trick to these apps is the same trick that TiddlyWiki uses, which is to construct a file in such a way that it can create an updated copy of itself and save it back to the server. I'm attracted to this approach because it's a way to use relatively modern technologies in a way that is independent from giant corporations that want to hoover up all my data, while also being easy to hack and modify to suit my needs on a day-to-day basis.
- ustad 2y ago
  Do have a link to all the single html file apps you have in mind?
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    I'm authoring two, One that's a keyboard based mnemonic launcher for accessing various websites. It's basically a way to have your bookmarks outside of the browser and quickly accessible. The other is a tabbed markdown document that can render static copies of itself. The two projects out in the wild that natively work with this approach are TiddlyWiki and FeatherWiki. I see room for a lightweight version of a calendar, a world clock, and even a lightweight spreadsheet that could be useful. I also have an idea for something I call a link trap where you can rapidly just drop links in and then search and sort over them to quickly retrieve something you saw before that was interesting. Sort of like my bookmarks-outside-the-browser except more of a history-outside-the-browser.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikae1 2y ago
pryelluw 2y ago
Typical HN passive aggressiveness sandwich. Nitpicking criticism with a half meant closing praise. Cool comment, though — don’t mean to take away anything from it. And Merry Christmas!
- johnfn 2y ago
  Lol, I was just disappointed because I was hoping to see a kanban board fully implemented in CSS/HTML. I do also dislike when nitpicky comments like this get upvoted.
darrenf 2y ago
It sets up precisely the expectation that everything is inline, surely? How else could it be fully implemented in a single file?
jmilloy 2y ago
"Single HTML file" sets up an expectation to me that it is (1) browser based and (2) client-side only. In other words, you can just open the file and start going without setting up a server, setting up a database, installing anything, or even having internet access. The last is not technically required but I think it is implied. It does not imply anything about the length of the file or the presence of client-side scripting.
qwertox 2y ago
> a five-thousand-line long HTML file with ~3500 lines of embedded JS You made me look at the code and I was afraid of what I was going to find. But man, that code is pretty and well organized, just like the resulting page.
hnlmorg 2y ago
Any project can be a single HTML file, but most projects prefer not to. Most projects prefer to have a separate database, server side rendering and often even multiple layers of compilers too. A lot of projects even require hundreds of megabytes of language runtime in addition to the browser stack. So a single HTML file is still unusual even if it’s something nearly any web app could technically do if they wished. And for this reason alone, I think it’s unreasonable to have expectations of a JavaScript-less, CSS-less code-golfed HTML file. This isn’t sold as a product of the demo scene (that’s another expectation entirely). This is sold as a practical self-hosting alternative for people who need a kanban quickly and painlessly. Your comment even proves that it works exactly as that kind of solution. So having inlined JS is a feature I’d expect from this rather than complain about.
nkrisc 2y ago
> I mean, hey, everything can be a single HTML file if you embed the bundle inline in your HTML! Yes, they could be. And then they would have the same super power is this file: you can put it on a flash drive and run it anywhere with no setup or installation.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]
wolpoli 2y ago
Single HTML file conjures up memories of certain Windows software of the 90s where it's a single .exe, installer-free program. It could be copied onto a floppy and run on my school's computer. We are definitely coming at this from a different angle.
gjvc 2y ago
talk about judging a book by its cover...
romanobro56 2y ago
I have a fully functional copy of Minecraft in a single html file
edmundsauto 2y ago
I disagree - there is value in single file versus multiple file, even if the LoC are exactly the same. It’s one reason Mac Apps get bundled as a single “file” from the user perspective. You don’t have to “install”, you just copy one file with everything. It’s a simpler dev experience. Sure there are tradeoffs, but that’s great! We should accept that tradeoffs mean people can chose what works best for their specific context, rather than “best practices” which are silly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by johnfn 2y ago

lelandbatey 2y ago

If I can actually hit "ctrl-s" and save it offline, that's a huge and worthwhile feature that meaningfully changes how I can interact with the project; it's not purely a fluff description.

zelphirkalt 2y ago
That will probably never work easily in any secure browser. I think at the very least you would have to go: ctrl+s, dialog opens hopefully at the right directory you want to store in, enter/return.
- hu3 2y ago
  Are you serious?
  - lagrange77 2y ago
    What's wrong with that statement? Can you access the filesystem without a dialog?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hu3 2y ago
      It's pure useless pedantry. Imagine the abysmal signal to noise ratio if discussions went like that more often.
      - bowsamic 2y ago
        It’s not pedantry at all, he’s highlighting a major usability issue
    - rpdillon 2y ago
      The point is that you can save the file and then use it offline. The exact set of clicks to make that happen are completely irrelevant to the core point.
      - zelphirkalt 2y ago
        So when you save a document in any popular word processing program, and every time you save it, a dialog would pop up asking you where to save it ... You wouldn't find that annoying at all, do I understand that correctly?
        rpdillon 2y ago
        Your line of questioning is based on an incorrect set of assumptions. The number of clicks is an implementation detail. It depends on whether or not you're using the web file API, some browser download capability, a browser plug-in, a mobile app, desktop app, a webdav server, or something else. For people trying it for the first time, they often have the experience you're describing. But for most anybody that actually picks this up and uses it on a day-to-day basis, they use something else that saves transparently and automatically. All of this is orthogonal to whether or not it's in a single HTML file. I fear you took lelandbatey's original ctrl-s reference a bit more literally than intended, though if you want to be pedantic, I can confirm I use applications in this style all day as part of my daily workflow and I do press ctrl-s and it saves with no further interaction in fully patched versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari with no plugins whatsoever.
        zelphirkalt 2y ago
        Would you be so kind to share how you manage to get them to save without further interaction? That would really add usability. Maybe I did take the ctrl+s too literally, but being pedantic was not my intention. Merely hinting at this usability issue. So a solution would be very welcome. (And I am not the one downvoting you, in fact I couldn't even.) As an aside: I do find these applications very interesting and am considering to make use of Nullboard myself, but also am weighing it against simply using org mode in Emacs and am looking for any advantage it might offer. Of course the ctrl+s issue plays a role there as well.
- Bjartr 2y ago
  The message you're replying to did not mean that "ctrl-s" is literally the only input, but implied the whole file saving workflow that begins with "ctrl-s". The fact that you're pointing out that the other interpretation is ridiculous is enough of a context clue to realize they're not likely to be saying that.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

What about "single HTML file" sets up an expectation about size? I'm genuinely confused. They seem like nearly unrelated concepts—this isn't a project about trying to fit a kanban board into a kilobyte or anything like that.

crazymao 2y ago
Why mention it when any project can technically be turned into a single html file? In my opinion there is an expectation of simplicity and as a result a small size with that statement.
- hu3 2y ago
  Turning a large project into a single HTML file results in a mess. Very different than a project that was made to be a single HTML file from the start.
- pseudosavant 2y ago
  The simplicity isn't in editing it, which most users never will do. It is in that you can drop a single file anywhere and not worry about its dependencies.
johnfn 2y ago
I think there are reasonable expectations around code quality that most projects adhere to, e.g.: - Split JS out from HTML, split CSS out from HTML - Keep files reasonably small So if I read "Single HTML file" I'd expect around a couple hundred lines at most, possibly with some embedded CSS. It's kind of like saying "I've solved your problem in one line of JS" but then your line of JS is 1000 characters long and is actually 50 statements separated by semicolons. Yes, technically you're not lying, but I was expecting when you said "one line of JS" that it would be roughly the size and shape of a typical line of JS found in the wild.
- barnabee 2y ago
  IMO those expectations are not reasonable at all given the description of the software; they sound more like anti-goals. When I see “single HTML file” it conjures up the same expectations as when PocketBase[0] describes itself as an “Open Source backend in 1 file”. That is that I can copy that file (and nothing else) somewhere and open/run it, and the application will function correctly. No internet connection, no external "assets" needed, and definitely no server. This mode of distribution, along with offline and local-first software, avoiding susbscriptions and third party / cloud dependencies, etc. all appeal to me very much. So far I'm impressed, I appreciate the nice, dense and uncluttered UI out of the box and it seems to cover enough functionality to be useful. I'll definitely look out for a chance to give it a spin on something real. [0] which I also think is great

rpdillon 2y ago

I totally understand your take, but as a guy that spends most of his time on side projects working on single HTML files, I have a different perspective. I find the totally self-contained nature of them very appealing because it travels well through space and time, and it's incredibly accessible, both online and offline. My current side project is actually using a WebDAV server to host a wide variety of different single HTML file apps that you can carry around on a USB drive or host on the web. The main trick to these apps is the same trick that TiddlyWiki uses, which is to construct a file in such a way that it can create an updated copy of itself and save it back to the server. I'm attracted to this approach because it's a way to use relatively modern technologies in a way that is independent from giant corporations that want to hoover up all my data, while also being easy to hack and modify to suit my needs on a day-to-day basis.

ustad 2y ago
Do have a link to all the single html file apps you have in mind?
- rpdillon 2y ago
  I'm authoring two, One that's a keyboard based mnemonic launcher for accessing various websites. It's basically a way to have your bookmarks outside of the browser and quickly accessible. The other is a tabbed markdown document that can render static copies of itself. The two projects out in the wild that natively work with this approach are TiddlyWiki and FeatherWiki. I see room for a lightweight version of a calendar, a world clock, and even a lightweight spreadsheet that could be useful. I also have an idea for something I call a link trap where you can rapidly just drop links in and then search and sort over them to quickly retrieve something you saw before that was interesting. Sort of like my bookmarks-outside-the-browser except more of a history-outside-the-browser.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikae1 2y ago

pryelluw 2y ago

Typical HN passive aggressiveness sandwich. Nitpicking criticism with a half meant closing praise. Cool comment, though — don’t mean to take away anything from it. And Merry Christmas!

johnfn 2y ago
Lol, I was just disappointed because I was hoping to see a kanban board fully implemented in CSS/HTML. I do also dislike when nitpicky comments like this get upvoted.

darrenf 2y ago

It sets up precisely the expectation that everything is inline, surely? How else could it be fully implemented in a single file?

jmilloy 2y ago

"Single HTML file" sets up an expectation to me that it is (1) browser based and (2) client-side only. In other words, you can just open the file and start going without setting up a server, setting up a database, installing anything, or even having internet access. The last is not technically required but I think it is implied. It does not imply anything about the length of the file or the presence of client-side scripting.

qwertox 2y ago

> a five-thousand-line long HTML file with ~3500 lines of embedded JS You made me look at the code and I was afraid of what I was going to find. But man, that code is pretty and well organized, just like the resulting page.

hnlmorg 2y ago

Any project can be a single HTML file, but most projects prefer not to. Most projects prefer to have a separate database, server side rendering and often even multiple layers of compilers too. A lot of projects even require hundreds of megabytes of language runtime in addition to the browser stack. So a single HTML file is still unusual even if it’s something nearly any web app could technically do if they wished. And for this reason alone, I think it’s unreasonable to have expectations of a JavaScript-less, CSS-less code-golfed HTML file. This isn’t sold as a product of the demo scene (that’s another expectation entirely). This is sold as a practical self-hosting alternative for people who need a kanban quickly and painlessly. Your comment even proves that it works exactly as that kind of solution. So having inlined JS is a feature I’d expect from this rather than complain about.

nkrisc 2y ago

> I mean, hey, everything can be a single HTML file if you embed the bundle inline in your HTML! Yes, they could be. And then they would have the same super power is this file: you can put it on a flash drive and run it anywhere with no setup or installation.

sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]

wolpoli 2y ago

Single HTML file conjures up memories of certain Windows software of the 90s where it's a single .exe, installer-free program. It could be copied onto a floppy and run on my school's computer. We are definitely coming at this from a different angle.

gjvc 2y ago

talk about judging a book by its cover...

romanobro56 2y ago

I have a fully functional copy of Minecraft in a single html file

edmundsauto 2y ago

I disagree - there is value in single file versus multiple file, even if the LoC are exactly the same. It’s one reason Mac Apps get bundled as a single “file” from the user perspective. You don’t have to “install”, you just copy one file with everything. It’s a simpler dev experience. Sure there are tradeoffs, but that’s great! We should accept that tradeoffs mean people can chose what works best for their specific context, rather than “best practices” which are silly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]