4 ms·

What needs to happen is that HTML needs to go back to being a mark-up language, and the web needs to stop trying to deliver an application-level implementation

What needs to happen is that HTML needs to go back to being a mark-up language, and the web needs to stop trying to deliver an application-level implementation for every single website. And we need to stop relying on JS so much.

pistoriusp 1y ago
I wrote this last week: > We spent a decade rebuilding the browser by hijacking routing, manually syncing state, rebuilding forms and transitions in JavaScript to match native app expectations. Now the browser has caught up. It's time to stop the hacks and build on the web again, but properly. We've been "holding the browser wrong" for the past 10 years.
- troupo 1y ago
  None of what you wrote changed in the past 10 years. You still need to do all of that for app-like behaviour. Unless you're arguing that we should stop cramming app-like behaviour into a system that doesn't support it. Then I'm with you.
lmm 1y ago
This view is completely backwards and I'm baffled by its popularity. Given that even newspaper websites are now built as applications, we should accept that the web is an application platform (with one of those applications being displaying articles) and rework HTML as an application display language. And we need to start relying on JS more. (Specifically, we should reimplement most traditional HTML elements and CSS as web components on top of a basic core web runtime. Then we could have a small standard for the core web that was practical to implement - just a very minimal layout engine and a JS interpreter - and everything else could be in the "component library" rather than something browser makers had to implement by hand. And then pages that want to use their own components or some other third-party components - which is most pages these days - could skip all that cruft)
- sirwhinesalot 1y ago
  That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of what the developers of those news websites want, rather than what the users of those news websites want. The users want to get a document, not an app. That's what the web was made for, documents.
  - Jarwain 1y ago
    The users want to read an article, I'm not sure the average user really cares if it's delivered as a document or an app
    - teddyh 1y ago
      Users do want to find the article via a search engine, and the search engine does prefer the article to be a document, rather than an app.
      - skeezyboy 1y ago
        he make a de good point
    - yoz-y 1y ago
      As a user I want to be able to save the page and read it later. Admittedly even with .war format and other attempts, this was possible only for a brief time. Now we have a crop of readability converters because even print to pdf is useless most of the time.
    - squidbeak 1y ago
      The user minds when the app gets in the way of the document.
    - croes 1y ago
      Those apps were the article is hidden between ads and newsletter/subscription pop-ups? The apps are mire likely used to hinder ad blockers than benefit the reader. What feature of an article needs an app?
masfoobar 1y ago
I agree. I remember the older days (2005-8) when we would dump a load of HTML from the server-side and kept javascript (for the most part) managing the layout and, not to mention, coding the painful differences between browsers.. even IE6 to IE7. As Javascript (likely thanks to jQuery for starters) got better with AJAX and supporting different browsers with less code, it seems Javascript transitioned to be a owner of data with events and triggers. As for the serverside, transitioned away from returning HTML but XML or the common Json data. Away from jQuery (or alongside it) we ended up with Javascript frameworks leading to bindings or automated refresh of data with template views, etc. Things like mustache.js to knockoutjs to angularjs. Now - its React, with node package managers, even grunt... to name a few... appear to be needed tools for web development these days. Its like we are just HIDING web development to an application. Underneath it all still remains the basics of HTML, CSS, Javascript -- and its relationship with the serverside language. I will admit. In the early days of HTML development.. I hated it! Its not the HTML side of things, but the tools I had to use like Classic ASP or supporting different browsers. If we do web development today like its 2005... with modern programming languages and web browsers, "old school" web development is a joy. In the last few years, I jumped back to the serverside generating the HTML again. I can still do "simple page" applications with AJAX returning a portion of HTML, etc. When I explain this reasoning with other developers, I get a confused look on their face. I try to explain to them that the backend code has not changed. Its just an extra layer of returning the data back as HTML, rather than Json. It sounds like more but all it does it organise your HTML templates on the serverside, rather than just having it all done on the clientside. Since then I have added htmx to the mix, which IMO compliments this original approach. I have made successful projects with it though I dont think I have won the co-workers. I dont think its because its the old school way or htmx -- its just they are so accustomed to the modern approach of web development.
- skeezyboy 1y ago
  > coding the painful differences between browsers.. even IE6 to IE7. This is what I always bring up to web devs who think theyve captured the "write once, run anywhere" dragon
jimbob45 1y ago
Every big tech company is too afraid to fundamentally rewrite the front-end of the internet even though they’ve all produced wonderful alternatives to varying degrees (TypeScript, Dart, Silverlight, etc). Most likely because they don’t want to be targeted as antitrust like MS back in the day.
pjmlp 1y ago
As someone coding since 1986, and since 1999 has done more Web related projects than native ones, that is my point of view exactly, unfortunely we kind of are in the minority. I was on the mobile app side, as possible way to turn the balance around, but then everyone started shipping Cordova and Ionic apps.
wolvesechoes 1y ago
"Web apps" should have been standard desktop apps with a network connection. You don't need a browser to use network protocols (and protocols died when HTTP stopped sending hypertext and started to send JSONs) or call APIs. Your OS manages the network stack. We can complain how much we want, but the stream of shit, web-shit included, cannot be stopped or reversed. Brace yourself for more.
- joquarky 1y ago
  Desktop apps run the risk of installing malware.
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    Life runs the risk of dying.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > "Web apps" should have been standard desktop apps with a network connection. This is the way I lean too. So much of what web apps do is just reinventing the wheel of desktop GUI toolkits, only worse, because each one does it in its own way, rather than all having a consistent look and feel.

pistoriusp 1y ago

I wrote this last week: > We spent a decade rebuilding the browser by hijacking routing, manually syncing state, rebuilding forms and transitions in JavaScript to match native app expectations. Now the browser has caught up. It's time to stop the hacks and build on the web again, but properly. We've been "holding the browser wrong" for the past 10 years.

troupo 1y ago
None of what you wrote changed in the past 10 years. You still need to do all of that for app-like behaviour. Unless you're arguing that we should stop cramming app-like behaviour into a system that doesn't support it. Then I'm with you.

lmm 1y ago

This view is completely backwards and I'm baffled by its popularity. Given that even newspaper websites are now built as applications, we should accept that the web is an application platform (with one of those applications being displaying articles) and rework HTML as an application display language. And we need to start relying on JS more. (Specifically, we should reimplement most traditional HTML elements and CSS as web components on top of a basic core web runtime. Then we could have a small standard for the core web that was practical to implement - just a very minimal layout engine and a JS interpreter - and everything else could be in the "component library" rather than something browser makers had to implement by hand. And then pages that want to use their own components or some other third-party components - which is most pages these days - could skip all that cruft)

sirwhinesalot 1y ago
That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of what the developers of those news websites want, rather than what the users of those news websites want. The users want to get a document, not an app. That's what the web was made for, documents.
- Jarwain 1y ago
  The users want to read an article, I'm not sure the average user really cares if it's delivered as a document or an app
  - teddyh 1y ago
    Users do want to find the article via a search engine, and the search engine does prefer the article to be a document, rather than an app.
    - skeezyboy 1y ago
      he make a de good point
  - yoz-y 1y ago
    As a user I want to be able to save the page and read it later. Admittedly even with .war format and other attempts, this was possible only for a brief time. Now we have a crop of readability converters because even print to pdf is useless most of the time.
  - squidbeak 1y ago
    The user minds when the app gets in the way of the document.
  - croes 1y ago
    Those apps were the article is hidden between ads and newsletter/subscription pop-ups? The apps are mire likely used to hinder ad blockers than benefit the reader. What feature of an article needs an app?

masfoobar 1y ago

I agree. I remember the older days (2005-8) when we would dump a load of HTML from the server-side and kept javascript (for the most part) managing the layout and, not to mention, coding the painful differences between browsers.. even IE6 to IE7. As Javascript (likely thanks to jQuery for starters) got better with AJAX and supporting different browsers with less code, it seems Javascript transitioned to be a owner of data with events and triggers. As for the serverside, transitioned away from returning HTML but XML or the common Json data. Away from jQuery (or alongside it) we ended up with Javascript frameworks leading to bindings or automated refresh of data with template views, etc. Things like mustache.js to knockoutjs to angularjs. Now - its React, with node package managers, even grunt... to name a few... appear to be needed tools for web development these days. Its like we are just HIDING web development to an application. Underneath it all still remains the basics of HTML, CSS, Javascript -- and its relationship with the serverside language. I will admit. In the early days of HTML development.. I hated it! Its not the HTML side of things, but the tools I had to use like Classic ASP or supporting different browsers. If we do web development today like its 2005... with modern programming languages and web browsers, "old school" web development is a joy. In the last few years, I jumped back to the serverside generating the HTML again. I can still do "simple page" applications with AJAX returning a portion of HTML, etc. When I explain this reasoning with other developers, I get a confused look on their face. I try to explain to them that the backend code has not changed. Its just an extra layer of returning the data back as HTML, rather than Json. It sounds like more but all it does it organise your HTML templates on the serverside, rather than just having it all done on the clientside. Since then I have added htmx to the mix, which IMO compliments this original approach. I have made successful projects with it though I dont think I have won the co-workers. I dont think its because its the old school way or htmx -- its just they are so accustomed to the modern approach of web development.

skeezyboy 1y ago
> coding the painful differences between browsers.. even IE6 to IE7. This is what I always bring up to web devs who think theyve captured the "write once, run anywhere" dragon

jimbob45 1y ago

Every big tech company is too afraid to fundamentally rewrite the front-end of the internet even though they’ve all produced wonderful alternatives to varying degrees (TypeScript, Dart, Silverlight, etc). Most likely because they don’t want to be targeted as antitrust like MS back in the day.

pjmlp 1y ago

As someone coding since 1986, and since 1999 has done more Web related projects than native ones, that is my point of view exactly, unfortunely we kind of are in the minority. I was on the mobile app side, as possible way to turn the balance around, but then everyone started shipping Cordova and Ionic apps.

wolvesechoes 1y ago

"Web apps" should have been standard desktop apps with a network connection. You don't need a browser to use network protocols (and protocols died when HTTP stopped sending hypertext and started to send JSONs) or call APIs. Your OS manages the network stack. We can complain how much we want, but the stream of shit, web-shit included, cannot be stopped or reversed. Brace yourself for more.

joquarky 1y ago
Desktop apps run the risk of installing malware.
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  Life runs the risk of dying.
BrenBarn 1y ago
> "Web apps" should have been standard desktop apps with a network connection. This is the way I lean too. So much of what web apps do is just reinventing the wheel of desktop GUI toolkits, only worse, because each one does it in its own way, rather than all having a consistent look and feel.