2 ms·
Oh man, and I thought the current JS status-quo was already full of vulnerabilities and privacy risks. If I had mind-boggling amounts of money, one of the thin
by Terr_ 2y ago
Oh man, and I thought the current JS status-quo was already full of vulnerabilities and privacy risks.
If I had mind-boggling amounts of money, one of the things I would do is start an organization to name and shame and give anti-awards to websites that most abuse javascript and whatever-this-will-be. Or a dang mutual fund: "Like an index fund except we don't support companies with websites that require a ridiculous amount of control over the client computer."
Wait, who am I kidding: A real activist tycoon would probably just become a shareholder and make demands.
- Hashex129542 2y agoPointed out well!!!
- namuol 2y agoOkay you had your FUD, now for the just desserts: This is actually a feature that is likely to reduce the amount of JS that needs to run on the web. It allows for common component-oriented styling patterns to be employed without bloating CSS bundles or using runtime CSS-in-JS functionality to accomplish it. Source: I work on a web development platform (booo, hisss)
- lenkite 2y agoI wish someone would give an example of why we need this. Doesn't @scope handle component-oriented styling ?
- rchaud 2y ago> This is actually a feature that is likely to reduce the amount of JS that needs to run on the web. The bulk of JS executed on websites today seem to be for 2 things: - serving ads and tracking - running a single-page app framework Can something like this really derail the React/Vue train?