6 ms·

Why are so many people here on HN so eager to throw away html/css/js, just because they're a little icky and you don't like to use them? Do you not realise tha

Why are so many people here on HN so eager to throw away html/css/js, just because they're a little icky and you don't like to use them? Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? Backwards compatibility and platform stability are GOOD THINGS that we need more, not less of. Lest we perpetually build content for doomed platforms, and leave no mark, no history on the world. the better course is evolution, not revolution. Mozilla has been through every revolution, first hand. They know what they're doing. edit: I'm flattered but please vote up the comments relevant to the actual post.

protonfish 13y ago
In my opinion HTML/CSS/JavaScript is the best interface design technology ever invented. I believe it gets a lot of hate because: 1) Amateurs can use it easily and poorly 2) It is not taught in computer science class 3) HTML/CSS is not programming 4) HTML docs attempt to be responsive/liquid as opposed to traditional screen painters. These are actually good things (and #2 can be fixed) but they represent a significant philosophical shift that most traditional developers don't want to accept.
- goggles99 13y ago
  If XAML some open source project made by some hippie group of developers, HTML/JAVASCRIPT/CSS would be in the toilet today. It is miles ahead of the barely moving technologies held back by the standards committees.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I'm not sure where you are going with that, but if you think you're going to convince millions of people to rewrite their websites because $NEW_TECH is now on the market, think again.
    - CmonDev 13y ago
      He is politely giving an example of a superior mark-up language. Just because developers are effectively forced to eat shit we shouldn't pretend it's a piece of a nice cake. Things like angu-bootstrap-whatever are just a thin layer of icing on the top of a big pile of manure.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        That's not what parent is saying. Parent is claiming that the only thing preventing us from welcoming our new XAML overlord is that it's made by Microsoft and not an "open source" project made by "some hippie group of developers". That's hogwash.
        goggles99 13y ago
        Is it??? A guaranteed prerequisite to next advancement in web tech is certainly that it does not come out of one of those 'evil corporations'...
        mercurial 13y ago
        It's hogwash because nobody is going to invest billions to remake the Internet with a non-backward compatible technology, wherever said technology comes from.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  you'd think if something were the most successful content platform since the invention of movable type, the scientific approach would be to figure out why, instead of trying to destroy it.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Please breathe, nobody is "destroying" anything.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      of course not. you can't despite how much you might want to, and I think a lot of people here do.
  - ChrisAntaki 13y ago
    One huge benefit of HTML/CSS/JS is this: you are downloading the actual source code. This allows different platforms to interpret it as they will. It also allows developers to learn from each other in an open way. Of course, it allows for security audits as well, since JavaScript can be profiled. Overall, it's the most communicative form of programming.
- rimantas 13y ago
  I am an expert in web technology (approaching 15 years of experience) and I absolutely disagree that that's is the best we have. Edit: damn, it is more than 15 years already. I've brought home the first HTML spec printout in 1996 and got first money for the website I've built in 1998. Still remember fixing <center> bug in IE3 when it came out…
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    I used the web in 1993, in the fall, with mosaic, and grey backgrounds. On a 286. With windows 3.1, and 16 colors. So that makes it 20 years. (dangit!) Anyway, I think javascript made a mess of it. The point of the web was to link documents. JS makes links obsolete, as they now are relegated to JS-app entry points. before I get too much in the weeds, I'm gonna go read the article.
    - zachrose 13y ago
      Shouldn't calling something "obsolete" mean it's no longer compatible or practical? Links work! They will always work!
    - cgrand-net 13y ago
      The problem is not that JS is worst than links or forms. It's the most potent hypermedia technique (code-on-demand) but it lays behind the Turing horizon: you can't statically determine what it's doing.
  - rybosome 13y ago
    What do you feel is the best that we have? I'm not preparing to raise an argument, merely asking for information. My own experience with user interface development outside of the web is pretty limited; I've created a few winform apps and done some OpenGL stuff in college, but that's basically it. Compared to those, I prefer the web stack.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      I don't know about rimantas but I really wish CSS would adopt Cassowary like Apple adopted for Cocoa Autolayout. Way better than flexbox. Cassowary is hands down the best tech for interfaces.
- cwyers 13y ago
  Well, or it gets hate because you have to code for multiple competing implementations that aren't good at interoperability.
- m3mnoch 13y ago
  > In my opinion HTML/CSS/JavaScript is the best interface design technology ever invented i thoroughly agree with this if you say "interface implementation technology" instead of "interface design technology". i also believe anyone who disagrees has never fully explored the various print/console/mobile/mfc/actionscript worlds. i mean... have you ever even USED something like pagemaker?
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  There is a very large, important difference between "best ever invented (so far)" and "best possible".
- pjmlp 13y ago
  > In my opinion HTML/CSS/JavaScript is the best interface design technology ever invented. Given my experience with the dozens of UI frameworks we enjoyed since the early 80's I cannot agree. It cannot be called anything else other than a big hack.
whyme 13y ago
I think you're making a great number of assumptions. There's no reason we can't keep backward compatibility as long as it's desired. No one is "throwing away the web", what ever that even means. We can always put the current stuff in a nice museum and pay tribute to the technological importance it achieved during the evolution of the web! vs an evolution of any seriously flawed specific piece of technology. Also, this really is not a "want", rather the real problems are creating real needs.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > There's no reason we can't keep backward comparability as long as it's desired. That is exactly what Servo is doing.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  "I would have thought ditching HTML, the box model, CSS and JavaScript to be a more important objective that should come sooner than this. Or another way to put this would be: Wouldn't development efficiency/simplicity be more important than running the current junk in parallel?" Does "ditch" and "junk" mean something other than the common usages of these terms to you? The only assumption I'm making is that you're writing in english.
  - whyme 13y ago
    One mans junk is another mans treasure. Looks like you're offended. I was suggesting to ditch specific technologies, not the "web" as you put it. So it's... what the web means... That I referred to.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - sehr 13y ago
      The web is made of these technologies.
stoptalkingshit 13y ago
HTML etc get flack because they're badly designed. What do you want? Semantic markup, document layout or distributed programming? Sorry but the web people got _everything_ wrong. We don't have a platform that does any one thing well. The whole thing is a laughable dog's breakfast with no layering, no foundations or unity of design. The better course is evolution.. for Mozilla, who have been very good at maintaining their market position while endlessly bungling platform design.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  and yet despite its flaws it's become the most successful platform for content since moveable type. Java failed to do that. iOS, despite its financial success, is failing to do that. android is failing to do that. flash failed. Aren't you the least bit curious why it succeeded despite not being to your taste? Do you think it's just accidental? That the laws of physics and rationality were suspended for one brief glorious moment in the 1990's? Are you a web creationist? Or do you believe that there's an actual answer?
  - stoptalkingshit 13y ago
    The man accusing me of "web creationism" jumps from "HTML etc suck and were poorly designed from the start" to "there's no explanation for their success". And in the same breath you engage in magical thinking regarding cause of the popularity of the web (indeed, I would bet you aren't capable of mentally separating "the web" from implementation details like HTML, CSS etc). Creationism was highly "successful" for the longest time too. Bravo on looking an absolute fool.
  - rimantas 13y ago
    "Content" is the key there. But I am at loss what exactly iOS and Android are failing to do? I think they do very well with music, movies, books, etc, thank you very much. Hypertext content? Well, we do have web for that.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
rimantas 13y ago
> Mozilla has been through every revolution, first hand. > They know what they're doing. Oh yes, I do remember those nice <layers> in NN4 and that CSS wannabe mingled with JS. For what I am grateful is Firefox (before the rise of chrome). However I think the proper mindset left Mozilla together with Blake Ross and all that's left is posturing and politics.
- soapdog 13y ago
  NN4 is not Mozilla. Mozilla is making Firefox and helping keep the web open with new APIs, standards. It is helping with the politics side regarding net neutrality. It is helping millions learn how to build web pages thru webmaker.org program that teaches web literacy and moving onward to teach app making with Mozilla Appmaker. Mozilla is helping bring the next billion people online by working with partners to offer affordable mobile devices on emerging markets where people can't afford computers or high end devices. Thats more than posturing.... Thats the result of a global community of volunteers, staff and partners working together to make the web and the world a better place for everybody.
pjmlp 13y ago
> Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? The web is more than the browser. The network protocols is what matter, not the browser.
- JetSpiegel 13y ago
  That's even worse. By that metric we should just killed it a long time ago.
goggles99 13y ago
Simple, because they have personally experienced better. They are tired of libraries, CSS/JavaScript compilers and hacks to try to drag old clunky technology into new paradigms.
goggles99 13y ago
>Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? Backwards compatibility and platform stability are GOOD THINGS that we need more, not less of. Lest we perpetually build content for doomed platforms, and leave no mark, no history on the world. the better course is evolution, not revolution. Candles oil lamps, and torches were pretty good at providing light at night in the 18th century, then there came electricity and the light bulb, everyone slowly threw away their candles for something better. Many people tried to design better candles instead of switching over. Candles that would burn brighter and longer, candles that would not blow out as easily and did not put off as much smoke, but you know what? These were was mere evolutionary changes and could not "hold a candle" to the revolutionary benefits of the light bulb. Sure it took a lot of work for people to take their oil lamps and candle fixtures off of the walls and ceilings. It was a lot of work to run wiring and put up new electric fixtures. But the time spent was an investment. Eventually it led to a lot better solution and a lot less effort in total. You are one of these guys who was using and evolving candles and oil lamps. You just can't see the bigger picture. These HNers who are not happy with still being forced to use candles are the real innovators... The technologists. You who are happy with the candle are merely paint and canvas artists. Paint and canvas artists in the 80s and 90s started to scoff when computer art and graphics began to gain prominence. These artists lacked the skills to do art with new technology, and lacked the ambition and any passion which was required to learn something new that would have diversified their artistic talents. They had their tools and they didn't want new ones. Their opposition actually was a result of a fear of being displaced, they wanted to stay in their stagnated comfort zone. Many web designers today are much the same. You want to make art with your old tools and are not really technologists at all, perhaps with new brushing techniques (JS libraries) in some instances, but never with any major evolutionary change. This stagnates innovation, even worse you are actively supporting the suppression of choice because you are afraid that you may become obsolete in your complacence with the technology behind your art.

protonfish 13y ago

In my opinion HTML/CSS/JavaScript is the best interface design technology ever invented. I believe it gets a lot of hate because: 1) Amateurs can use it easily and poorly 2) It is not taught in computer science class 3) HTML/CSS is not programming 4) HTML docs attempt to be responsive/liquid as opposed to traditional screen painters. These are actually good things (and #2 can be fixed) but they represent a significant philosophical shift that most traditional developers don't want to accept.

goggles99 13y ago
If XAML some open source project made by some hippie group of developers, HTML/JAVASCRIPT/CSS would be in the toilet today. It is miles ahead of the barely moving technologies held back by the standards committees.
- mercurial 13y ago
  I'm not sure where you are going with that, but if you think you're going to convince millions of people to rewrite their websites because $NEW_TECH is now on the market, think again.
  - CmonDev 13y ago
    He is politely giving an example of a superior mark-up language. Just because developers are effectively forced to eat shit we shouldn't pretend it's a piece of a nice cake. Things like angu-bootstrap-whatever are just a thin layer of icing on the top of a big pile of manure.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      That's not what parent is saying. Parent is claiming that the only thing preventing us from welcoming our new XAML overlord is that it's made by Microsoft and not an "open source" project made by "some hippie group of developers". That's hogwash.
      - goggles99 13y ago
        Is it??? A guaranteed prerequisite to next advancement in web tech is certainly that it does not come out of one of those 'evil corporations'...
        mercurial 13y ago
        It's hogwash because nobody is going to invest billions to remake the Internet with a non-backward compatible technology, wherever said technology comes from.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
TheZenPsycho 13y ago
you'd think if something were the most successful content platform since the invention of movable type, the scientific approach would be to figure out why, instead of trying to destroy it.
- pekk 13y ago
  Please breathe, nobody is "destroying" anything.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    of course not. you can't despite how much you might want to, and I think a lot of people here do.
- ChrisAntaki 13y ago
  One huge benefit of HTML/CSS/JS is this: you are downloading the actual source code. This allows different platforms to interpret it as they will. It also allows developers to learn from each other in an open way. Of course, it allows for security audits as well, since JavaScript can be profiled. Overall, it's the most communicative form of programming.
rimantas 13y ago
I am an expert in web technology (approaching 15 years of experience) and I absolutely disagree that that's is the best we have. Edit: damn, it is more than 15 years already. I've brought home the first HTML spec printout in 1996 and got first money for the website I've built in 1998. Still remember fixing <center> bug in IE3 when it came out…
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  I used the web in 1993, in the fall, with mosaic, and grey backgrounds. On a 286. With windows 3.1, and 16 colors. So that makes it 20 years. (dangit!) Anyway, I think javascript made a mess of it. The point of the web was to link documents. JS makes links obsolete, as they now are relegated to JS-app entry points. before I get too much in the weeds, I'm gonna go read the article.
  - zachrose 13y ago
    Shouldn't calling something "obsolete" mean it's no longer compatible or practical? Links work! They will always work!
  - cgrand-net 13y ago
    The problem is not that JS is worst than links or forms. It's the most potent hypermedia technique (code-on-demand) but it lays behind the Turing horizon: you can't statically determine what it's doing.
- rybosome 13y ago
  What do you feel is the best that we have? I'm not preparing to raise an argument, merely asking for information. My own experience with user interface development outside of the web is pretty limited; I've created a few winform apps and done some OpenGL stuff in college, but that's basically it. Compared to those, I prefer the web stack.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    I don't know about rimantas but I really wish CSS would adopt Cassowary like Apple adopted for Cocoa Autolayout. Way better than flexbox. Cassowary is hands down the best tech for interfaces.
cwyers 13y ago
Well, or it gets hate because you have to code for multiple competing implementations that aren't good at interoperability.
m3mnoch 13y ago
> In my opinion HTML/CSS/JavaScript is the best interface design technology ever invented i thoroughly agree with this if you say "interface implementation technology" instead of "interface design technology". i also believe anyone who disagrees has never fully explored the various print/console/mobile/mfc/actionscript worlds. i mean... have you ever even USED something like pagemaker?
andrewflnr 13y ago
There is a very large, important difference between "best ever invented (so far)" and "best possible".
pjmlp 13y ago
> In my opinion HTML/CSS/JavaScript is the best interface design technology ever invented. Given my experience with the dozens of UI frameworks we enjoyed since the early 80's I cannot agree. It cannot be called anything else other than a big hack.

whyme 13y ago

I think you're making a great number of assumptions. There's no reason we can't keep backward compatibility as long as it's desired. No one is "throwing away the web", what ever that even means. We can always put the current stuff in a nice museum and pay tribute to the technological importance it achieved during the evolution of the web! vs an evolution of any seriously flawed specific piece of technology. Also, this really is not a "want", rather the real problems are creating real needs.

pcwalton 13y ago
> There's no reason we can't keep backward comparability as long as it's desired. That is exactly what Servo is doing.
TheZenPsycho 13y ago
"I would have thought ditching HTML, the box model, CSS and JavaScript to be a more important objective that should come sooner than this. Or another way to put this would be: Wouldn't development efficiency/simplicity be more important than running the current junk in parallel?" Does "ditch" and "junk" mean something other than the common usages of these terms to you? The only assumption I'm making is that you're writing in english.
- whyme 13y ago
  One mans junk is another mans treasure. Looks like you're offended. I was suggesting to ditch specific technologies, not the "web" as you put it. So it's... what the web means... That I referred to.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sehr 13y ago
    The web is made of these technologies.

stoptalkingshit 13y ago

HTML etc get flack because they're badly designed. What do you want? Semantic markup, document layout or distributed programming? Sorry but the web people got _everything_ wrong. We don't have a platform that does any one thing well. The whole thing is a laughable dog's breakfast with no layering, no foundations or unity of design. The better course is evolution.. for Mozilla, who have been very good at maintaining their market position while endlessly bungling platform design.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
and yet despite its flaws it's become the most successful platform for content since moveable type. Java failed to do that. iOS, despite its financial success, is failing to do that. android is failing to do that. flash failed. Aren't you the least bit curious why it succeeded despite not being to your taste? Do you think it's just accidental? That the laws of physics and rationality were suspended for one brief glorious moment in the 1990's? Are you a web creationist? Or do you believe that there's an actual answer?
- stoptalkingshit 13y ago
  The man accusing me of "web creationism" jumps from "HTML etc suck and were poorly designed from the start" to "there's no explanation for their success". And in the same breath you engage in magical thinking regarding cause of the popularity of the web (indeed, I would bet you aren't capable of mentally separating "the web" from implementation details like HTML, CSS etc). Creationism was highly "successful" for the longest time too. Bravo on looking an absolute fool.
- rimantas 13y ago
  "Content" is the key there. But I am at loss what exactly iOS and Android are failing to do? I think they do very well with music, movies, books, etc, thank you very much. Hypertext content? Well, we do have web for that.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago

rimantas 13y ago

> Mozilla has been through every revolution, first hand. > They know what they're doing. Oh yes, I do remember those nice <layers> in NN4 and that CSS wannabe mingled with JS. For what I am grateful is Firefox (before the rise of chrome). However I think the proper mindset left Mozilla together with Blake Ross and all that's left is posturing and politics.

soapdog 13y ago
NN4 is not Mozilla. Mozilla is making Firefox and helping keep the web open with new APIs, standards. It is helping with the politics side regarding net neutrality. It is helping millions learn how to build web pages thru webmaker.org program that teaches web literacy and moving onward to teach app making with Mozilla Appmaker. Mozilla is helping bring the next billion people online by working with partners to offer affordable mobile devices on emerging markets where people can't afford computers or high end devices. Thats more than posturing.... Thats the result of a global community of volunteers, staff and partners working together to make the web and the world a better place for everybody.

pjmlp 13y ago

> Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? The web is more than the browser. The network protocols is what matter, not the browser.

JetSpiegel 13y ago
That's even worse. By that metric we should just killed it a long time ago.

goggles99 13y ago

Simple, because they have personally experienced better. They are tired of libraries, CSS/JavaScript compilers and hacks to try to drag old clunky technology into new paradigms.

goggles99 13y ago

>Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? Backwards compatibility and platform stability are GOOD THINGS that we need more, not less of. Lest we perpetually build content for doomed platforms, and leave no mark, no history on the world. the better course is evolution, not revolution. Candles oil lamps, and torches were pretty good at providing light at night in the 18th century, then there came electricity and the light bulb, everyone slowly threw away their candles for something better. Many people tried to design better candles instead of switching over. Candles that would burn brighter and longer, candles that would not blow out as easily and did not put off as much smoke, but you know what? These were was mere evolutionary changes and could not "hold a candle" to the revolutionary benefits of the light bulb. Sure it took a lot of work for people to take their oil lamps and candle fixtures off of the walls and ceilings. It was a lot of work to run wiring and put up new electric fixtures. But the time spent was an investment. Eventually it led to a lot better solution and a lot less effort in total. You are one of these guys who was using and evolving candles and oil lamps. You just can't see the bigger picture. These HNers who are not happy with still being forced to use candles are the real innovators... The technologists. You who are happy with the candle are merely paint and canvas artists. Paint and canvas artists in the 80s and 90s started to scoff when computer art and graphics began to gain prominence. These artists lacked the skills to do art with new technology, and lacked the ambition and any passion which was required to learn something new that would have diversified their artistic talents. They had their tools and they didn't want new ones. Their opposition actually was a result of a fear of being displaced, they wanted to stay in their stagnated comfort zone. Many web designers today are much the same. You want to make art with your old tools and are not really technologists at all, perhaps with new brushing techniques (JS libraries) in some instances, but never with any major evolutionary change. This stagnates innovation, even worse you are actively supporting the suppression of choice because you are afraid that you may become obsolete in your complacence with the technology behind your art.