4 ms·
I've got a number of vanilla JS, HTML, CSS libraries that work only from within the browser, using the standard tags to include them. For me, not having a buil
by lelanthran 2y ago
I've got a number of vanilla JS, HTML, CSS libraries that work only from within the browser, using the standard tags to include them.
For me, not having a build-step means that, yes, I miss out on typescript, but the upsides are easier to read, easier debugging and lower cognitive burden during both writing and reading the application.
It means I will never, like the author in the article, spend $X weeks, and then spend a further $Y dollars just to build something "modern".
My "modern looking" applications are developed, and then tested, on a machine from 2010 (1st-gen i7) that has 16GB of RAM and oodles of slow spinning-rust disks, and it isn't painful at all.[1]
[1] It is, in fact, quite nice when I see a client use their system from their own PC and it's just a little bit snappier than I am used to.
- julik 2y agoAbsolutely with you on "no build". Sometimes it doesn't work (for me - where I need NPM modules with annoying math I don't want to do myself), but the basic premise of "nobuild" is absolutely and completely how it all should have always worked. It's the JSX+webpack perversion that ruined it for us all.
- pjmlp 2y agoSame approach over here for side projects, I only put up with "modern" Web development when ir isn't my choice. Classical ASP.NET, Spring with vanilla js.