4 ms·
For some damn fool reason we keep throwing beginners at frameworks--they should be starting with just basic HTML and CSS, and then learning JS, and only then mo
by perdunov 12y ago
For some damn fool reason we keep throwing beginners at frameworks--they should be starting with just basic HTML and CSS, and then learning JS, and only then moving on to frameworks. It's so damned confusing in part because people aren't learning the fundamentals, and so are lacking a mental model of how things work and what makes them slow.
Actually, I've been familiar with HTML+CSS+JS for a long time. The vanilla web is just not very practical for creating full-fledged web apps, especially given that there are so many frameworks that have a lot of things out of the box. Also, the vanilla web misses some features that are essential, such as the reactivity (binding).
Show me some numbers. If you want to talk about performance, then let's be quantitative. I'm also willing to wager that the HTML on the mobile device was full of bits you didn't need.
The last time I tried you wouldn't need numbers, as my pet engine did steady 60 FPS full-screen animations, while the iOS web view pathetically presented something closer to a slideshow, Android did better, but still not smooth enough. And the page loading was visible instead of instantaneous display with the native stuff. Of course, faster devices alleviate the problem.
>But still, there are better models, and there can be even better models.
Again, why do you think this is the case?
Because I've developed my own thing similar to what HTML+CSS+JS do, and I could clearly realize that you can do the same things with a much simpler model that also happens to work faster. Also, there are existing native frameworks that are examples of this.
It's quite clear that the web wasn't originally designed to be used how it's currently used and practical web apps are built with basically hacks over hacks and hack-based frameworks. Obviously, getting rid of all that clutter accumulated by incremental evolution would make a difference.
- ndesaulniers 12y ago> Well, I'm a beginner in web ... > Actually, I've been familiar with HTML+CSS+JS for a long time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHZL7RdQsaw&t=3m27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHZL7RdQsaw&t=3m27s
- perdunov 12y agoDude, don't be so shallow. You'll be surprised, but HTML, CSS, and JS are not the web. To realize this simple fact, you can try looking up the statistics on the number of websites made in vanilla HTML/CSS/JS, or see how many there are the 'Vanilla HTML/CSS/JS developers' out there. That means, if you only know HTML, CSS, and JS, you can't make practical web apps, and you can't be a web developer either. I am familiar with HTML, CSS, and JS, but can't make anything except the simplest static website.
- voctor 12y agoDo you have an example of your "pet naive unoptimized UI engine" ? Or some code to show ? :)
- perdunov 12y agoIt remained in the commercial mobile app I'd used it for, and it's not my intellectual property anymore. There isn't anything ingenious about it anyway. My point wasn't about how good my pet engine was (because it wasn't), but about the fact how the overcomplicated model of the HTML-CSS-DOM-JS makes it so hard to optimize web page rendering that even an unoptimized prototype UI engine outperforms the browser. I am amazed by the people who develop browser engines because they do something almost magic of fitting that monstrous dynamically modified DOM into so little memory and making it so fast. I conjecture that in a naive unoptimized implementation a web browser would consume gigabytes and took a couple of minutes to load an average page.
- mlvljr 12y agoWhat a name, good sir! (also, keep it up with this fight, +1-ed)