3 ms·
> But as much as I hate to admit it, it is very difficult to build something functional today with plain HTML and no/minimal JS. I would certainly agree that u
by bigstrat2003 10mo ago
> But as much as I hate to admit it, it is very difficult to build something functional today with plain HTML and no/minimal JS.
I would certainly agree that using a little JS can get you further than just HTML. But I think that a plain HTML page is far more pleasant to use (and thus, functional) than the JS monstrosities that dominate the Web today. There's a reason people use the NoScript addon: because a whole lot of website designers use JS in ways that make the experience a ton worse for the user.
- llmslave2 10mo agoIt's not an either/or. Modern Javascript is actually really nice to write and use, and you can write it in a tight, minimal way that doesn't bloat the page or slow it down.
- tonyedgecombe 10mo ago>you can write it in a tight, minimal way that doesn't bloat the page or slow it down. Yet most people don't. There are some problems with the language itself but it's mostly from a users perspective that I find it frustrating.
- trinix912 10mo agoOf course you can, but most people still opt to pull in a whole framework (React) or heavy library (jQuery) just to achieve what's essentially a few XMLHttpRequests and some DOM changes.
- ganzsz 10mo agoMaybe because it is easier to track one library, react and jsx. I wouldn't use xmlhttprequest since the request api exist.
- zarzavat 10mo ago> There's a reason people use the NoScript addon To be snarky, do they? The average user doesn't even know what JS is. Users want websites that are fast and solve their problems, with a good UI. They don't care how it's made. Make websites that people enjoy using. A good developer can do that with any set of tools, though a no-JS approach is limited in scope.