3 ms·

This article is terrible. It argues for awful web and UI development, and seems to be doing it entirely out of some kind of perverse pride. The first item in t

by awkward 11y ago

This article is terrible. It argues for awful web and UI development, and seems to be doing it entirely out of some kind of perverse pride. The first item in this list recommends support for IE6 or below, a decision which will massively balloon your project budget for a shot at roughly %1 of the total browser market. Microsoft itself has launched multiple campaigns to get developers to stop supporting IE6. Charitably, I'll assume the author doesn't want to lump javascript compilers in with preprocessors, although his arguments against seem like they might suggest he does. Following that, he recommends development using progressive enhancement, which was developed as a best practice largely to wiggle out from the constraints imposed by IE 6 during the eight years where it was crushing the shit out of the web industry. As a closer, he suggest that you not learn "buzzword" technologies in order to increase your day rate. In summary, he wants you to target ancient technology, eschew any front end build process, live in fear of the ancient technology you've agreed to support, and then not get paid for it.

michaelbuddy 11y ago
Yeahhh, you've not written a very good summary of what he wrote. But I hope it felt good to get a word in at least.
- awkward 11y ago
  Acceptable risk levels vary from project to project, and often it is a good choice to de-risk your UI so that you can budget risk to something more important to project success. I am currently working on a manufacturing support project that uses jquery in a progressive enhancement style, for instance, because that's the most comfortable level for the team, and we prefer to have the risk in the part of the code that gets into the business processes. This means we use a framework, LESS (for bootstrap UI) and we support web standards. We do not support IE6 because one cannot legally purchase a computer that runs IE6 in 2015. The article is making statements that claim to be conservative, but were too conservative for businesses supporting them to survive. In 2006. This is a bad article. I had trouble finding the date on it, but on the site's index it states that it was written in 2014. This makes it violently out of date at the time of it's writing. You should not treat it like a good article because it flatters your prejudices about new-fangled web development, because most of the content of the article is flattery. Not only that, it flatters you for not paying attention to what is going on. That should be a bad sign.

by awkward 11y ago

michaelbuddy 11y ago

Yeahhh, you've not written a very good summary of what he wrote. But I hope it felt good to get a word in at least.

awkward 11y ago
Acceptable risk levels vary from project to project, and often it is a good choice to de-risk your UI so that you can budget risk to something more important to project success. I am currently working on a manufacturing support project that uses jquery in a progressive enhancement style, for instance, because that's the most comfortable level for the team, and we prefer to have the risk in the part of the code that gets into the business processes. This means we use a framework, LESS (for bootstrap UI) and we support web standards. We do not support IE6 because one cannot legally purchase a computer that runs IE6 in 2015. The article is making statements that claim to be conservative, but were too conservative for businesses supporting them to survive. In 2006. This is a bad article. I had trouble finding the date on it, but on the site's index it states that it was written in 2014. This makes it violently out of date at the time of it's writing. You should not treat it like a good article because it flatters your prejudices about new-fangled web development, because most of the content of the article is flattery. Not only that, it flatters you for not paying attention to what is going on. That should be a bad sign.