I expect I'll annoy everyone with this post: the anti-JavaScript crusaders, justly aghast at how much of the stuff we slather onto modern websites;...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Honestly my biggest issue with the current state of the web is the current state of how complex the tools or build process is.
I miss the days of some html, add a bit of JavaScript to the page and you were done. You didn't worry about going and making sure you had a complete build or bundling process to get everything good. You spent your time worrying about how to develop your app. Which in my opinion was better for the users. There was less bugs. We actually spent more time making sure the application worked rock solid.
Nowadays to get anything cool to be be ready for production you have spend needless time on the configuration. Did you do this? Did you configure it to do that? Oh you can't do that unless you eject it that build tool and use this build tool. That's where the current state of the web is failing.
Sure we have taken steps forward in some areas. But we have to be honest with ourselves. We took major steps back in other areas of the web. Sometimes I wonder if we took too many steps back.
I don't get it. Nobody's stopping you from firing up an HTML doc in Notepad and FTPing the result to a web server, if that's all you need. But other people have more complex needs (in the "good ole days" there were no smart phones, to mention just one thing) and therefore we need more complex tools. Why do you want to force me to party like it's 1999?
My issue isn't with applications are too complex really. I develop complex applications too at work.
My issue is with all the moving parts with a modern web application. Fighting if I can use certain language features. Oh I can't, now I have to bother with setting up and making sure I can use Babel or something to do it properly, or even loading in polyfills (cool just added another dependency the browser has to load before the application can be used).
That still hasn't covered bundling everything. What's the correct way bundle this? Well crap I now have to go and correctly configure WebPack. Unless you're one of the VERY FEW experts on that ,that will take time to figure out to get right. Ok so I think it bundles right, well now how should I lazy load this code for the user? What should be lazy loaded? What should i use to set it up?
That's just the beginning. I could go on and on about the other complex moving parts with a modern web application.
I am not asking anyone to make applications like it is 1999. All I'm asking for is a more modern and simpler process that is a STANDARD.
Maybe it is because I come from compiled language background. Where I have to worry about that one single binary. I only have to worry if the compiler supports the language version I'm using. Where I can just pass in a single flag to the compiler for the optimization level I want.
Yes I will be the first to say that in some areas of modern web application development we have taken steps forward. I just wonder if we have taken steps back in some areas to take those steps forward.
Well I am sorry, but web development is a complete different kettle of fish. We download all the parts that make up an application asynchronously, on a wide variety of devices, with different specs and rendering capabilities - all things which the app, once downloaded, need to adapt to. We have progressive rendering and respond to all sort of sensors. All while ensuring boot up time for the app is in the microseconds range and security for both you who download the code and the server.
Your expectations are simply unrealistic, sorry.
Also, we always had polyfills, even "back in the day". Except that back then everyone had to bake their own. In fact, we had browser wars and appalling browser (IE5 for the Mac, anyone??!?) and it was a real pain in the neck.
Bingo, the complexity today is a must, at least because of the growing smartphone usage. The simple reason why "Native Apps didn't kill the web even with all their superior capabilities" (Ryan) is simply UX. As internet usage often starts with searching for something having in mind, that all-app-thinking interrupts exactly this flow, leaving at least 30% of all traffic untouched. For what? For 5-minutes-crafts skyrocketing their YouTube traffic? Although not everything needs server side complexity plus having API's and webhooks easily integrated using browser capabilities not existing in the god old days, the architecture underneath is not the real issue.
re: sessions --> I keep tabs open for months at a time, not sure about anyone else
You fight complexity with ... more complexity?
You are getting it wrong. The aim is not "to fight complexity". The aim is to fulfil complex needs. I am saying for that you often need more complex tools.
What percentage of modern web is a "complex needs" target that requires a complex solution such as React or Vue or perhaps something custom written in WASM? 50% 25%? 5% 1%?
All of it. Unless you have actual data that proves otherwise...
uh what? the web is about content and media. not a software environment.
Some interesting thoughts, in the original article and your response. Certainly good for generating discussion :)
The problem as I see it is that the web -- in terms of client-side executed markup and code (HTML/CSS/JavaScript) just wasn't designed with these kinds of interactions in mind (the interactions that Ryan Florence highlighted). It's the wrong foundation for it.
I don't think that "getting there" should be through bending original web technologies, but rather with something else entirely -- perhaps WebAssembly, or a return to actual native applications much like we've come to depend on on our tablets and phones. We already can do nice animations like that iPad demo with native desktop applications. There's many advantages to websites over native desktop apps, with the standout one being that they don't require someone to install an application on their machine. Maybe WebAssembly can give us a compromise -- desktop apps built with technology designed for that job, but available in a way that doesn't require any local installation. Then we can use tools that were purpose built for those kinds of tasks, instead of trying to wrangle the foundations of the web to fit something they were never built for.
When I think back to how we used to build websites back in the day, and how we build sites with technologies in tools like React now, I'm honestly not sure that we've gained anything of great enough value relative to the simplicity we've lost. In short, I'd be happy to abandon our current trajectory and put our hope in alternative solutions for those situations where what we really need is a native application. Leave the web for what it's good at.
That's interesting. I mean I was there too, and the extent of what I can build with a modern library so extends what I could reasonably do before. And the reason for that is JavaScript. When I was building sites in the late 90s so many things weren't possible and you had no choice but to pay these costs for interactivity. Sure I view sourced a few cool tricks.. image maps etc, but with my table based layouts and a little JavaScript I could do very little. Part of it was the available DOM api's. My lack of understanding of the language but I think we look at the past with rose colored glasses.
It's more interesting to me that native platforms have borrowed concepts from libraries like React in terms of declarative views etc. I'm not saying React invented this stuff but that the trend would suggest the contrary. These trends could be mistakes but popularity has as much stake in the course of events as innate value.
I think this comes down to really this hope of a Silver Bullet. It doesn't exist. Instead we have momentum of a ubiquitous platform that just is constantly aiming to improve. It's not only that the other approaches have already lost, we're getting to a point where any new approach will have to atleast acknowledge the current web. At this point a competitor isn't going to change the tide, but something from within. It's more likely that the web addresses those fundamental shortcomings than people moving to a different platform. Native Apps didn't kill the web even with all their superior capabilities. And on a similar note it is going to take monumental change for this to fundamentally change. Even with React's reach, it wasn't alone in a movement that started years before. This is bigger than any particular library or framework.
There is absolutely no doubt that you can do incredible things with modern web, and the power unlocked by having a programming language in the browser has been amazing. However, when I think about a great deal of the websites I interact with, and ones I build, there would not be much lost if they significantly simplified the tech stack they work with to be closer to the core technologies of the web (including a splash of JavaScript).
What I'm trying to convey is that I think our move to make everything a web app has been a mistake, for multiple reasons. You are absolutely right to say that this tide is going to be very hard (perhaps impossible) to turn, and I absolutely agree there is no silver bullet (I've looked), but that doesn't mean we haven't taken a worse path and shouldn't lament for what could have been.
The advantages of web apps are compelling for developers -- they are easy to distribute, update, control, make cross platform, when compared to native apps. It is not hard to understand why and how we have ended up where we are. I just wish we were somewhere else -- but it would take a lot of work to create that 'silver bullet'.
That whole app environment was basically triggered by one need, and one need only: bandwidth. No idea if anyone remembers when they launched this WAP protocol, making the internet available on smartphones, what failed for two reasons. The providers made it easy to access on their own portals aka AOL strategy at beginning of the web, leaving the rest of the market untouched, secondly the site performance was ridiculous. Apple stepped in, put a bunch of intelligence into the app, dramatically reducing the load time, did not convert so much traffic on their own apps and let developers do what they do best. By 2008 more than 50% of the whole mobile internet traffic was iPhone traffic.
Bandwidth is no longer the breaking point.
Google has for years campaigned the untapped goldmine local traffic, experience flows that often start at the search for getting something done in time, monetising on micro moments as more than half of all mobile searches have a local intend. I posted an example how something to get done interferes cross-applicational from the perspective of a user. With an app-only scheme this is getting impossible. Sure it is understandable that nobody pays so much attention. Most search engines run a change and heavily invested in AI to optimise traffic at the client's frontend. But even this is not enough, when it comes to intends other than something very individualised. I wouldn't care so much about the user, but more about what the user wants to achieve.
React definitely didn't invent HTML.
Declarative views, indeed.
Yes. Please. Can we please just accept that it's all broken.
Not at all.
CSS has media queries and all sort of crazy and wonderful stuff. HTML has tags for responsive design. JS has (in the browser) access to apis like mutation observer and orientation and speech recognition. It's TOTALLY built for that. Enough of the "get off my lawn" negativity
shakes his cane at you
mutters incomprehensibly
Looking at the criticism made about some recent redesigns (reddit, facebook, etc) it seems that the main complaint (from a user point of view, at least) is how slow it feels compared to the previous version or to a "simple" site with HTML, CSS, and a little bit of javascript.
I haven't checked it recently, but when the new reddit UI was released, scrolling was terrible on my $2500k laptop. It felt slow. Everything was sluggish. It also downloaded a few MB of javascript on pages that essentially had a thumbnail, a title, and some comments (not everyone lives in a big city or is connected to a super fast internet connection!). When the page was loaded, I was seeing more scrolling lag because they lazyload some content. I mean, it's hard to like this "modern web".
As a user, I don't care about how things work behind the scenes. I don't mind some javascript on a page, after all we don't need a page reload just to preview a comment or "like" something. You can even use javascript for everything, I don't mind. But it needs to be fast and it needs to work well... and right now some "modern" sites provide a worse experience than before.
Tom identified the main weakness of modern web development correctly: It's based on javascript. He points out the sluggishness and accessibility problems that stem from that attitude, and hes absolutely right to do so. Static pages (as a paradigm, not as Gatsby in particular) are maybe not the cure for that, but they are definitely a step into the right direction.
I just rewrote my website with hugo and specifically without a major JS framework, but settled for a vanilla approach rooted in a progressive enhancement mindset. I didn't even run into the problems that are inherent to React, Vue and Angular.
Sure, you can serve HTML with SSR, but you still have to wait for the bundle in order to have a functional site, plus a truckload of ssr-related complexity. And that is utter rubbish. JS should never be a requirement, it needs to be put in its place as the cherry on top of the cake.
Progressive enhancement needs not only to be a major approach to webdevelopment again, it needs to be out default mode of operation.
This is also the core of Toms article. And I agree with him.
That said, nothing stops you from adding features like nice transitions. But please be sure not to break standard web features while doing so.
Transitions need to add to hyperlinks, not replace them.
I feel like you didn't quite read the article closely enough ;) Of course progressive enhancement needs to be the default — that's why there's so much focus on SSR in all major meta-frameworks.
This isn't true! Take sapper.svelte.dev, which is a site built with Sapper and baked out as static pages. It works just fine without JavaScript, you just don't get client-side routing. It's a small site, but the same thing applies to larger ones like Gatsby's homepage — no JS? No problem.
It certainly is true for standard implementations of React-, Vue- and Angular- based sites. There may be a focus on SSR, but it still isn't close enough to deserve to be the default. It needs to come without extra complexity. Only then we're ready to take the step to fully embrace those solution.
And this is my point. You need to take one step after the other. It was a mistake to build everything with javascript first and then try to look if it still works without afterwards. The damage to the web has been done.
I didn't take a look at Sapper/Svelte. Though, in comparison, those are still a nieche product.
JS certainly caused a lot of damage on many websites. But now - finally - we're getting to the point of having frameworks which can, by default, offer client-side routing with SSR and hydration without shipping large bundles of JS. Up to this point the frontend devs should have been more conservative and they should have thought twice whether they should really go all-in into an SPA. But now's the time when it's really starting to be a viable option. Next, Nuxt, Marko and Sapper are finally technologies highly worth pursuing, even for content-based websites.
I like this takeaway because it's heavy on acknowledging the process behind the technology which is often disparate and confusing. Even the most well-intentioned and organized dev team is going to get out of wack if succeeding with the tooling is experts only. We need to be able to achieve great performance, UX and accessibility even under conditions where designers do some work, devs pop in some hotfixes here and there, old devs leave with some of the knowledge, priorities change, etc.
I like this aspect of Mr. Harris' article, too. It's the first principle of the Tao of HashiCorp: Workflows, not Technologies.
And it's why Sacrificial Architecture appeases the dark ones.
Good response, opinions are always worth having, as long as you are prepared to discuss/defend/change them! I had a few thoughts on this topic last year in response to your good self and web components that I think is worth referring back to: dev.to/phlash909/comment/cghl
In essence, the DOM and page model of HTML is a constraint around the outside of applications that might be better inverted: I'd like to see browsers that support HTML/DOM content if required, but do not constrain devs to always go though it. Let's stop thinking of them as HTML rendering engines, and start thinking of pre-installed runtimes with excellent web-based application management!
We'll want to retain the benefits of dynamic software running on the client (native UX, easy architecture changes, no user-install step, etc.), while leveraging the effort that goes into making that a portable & safe thing to do (common APIs, sandboxes, browsers as the standard runtime for client-side applications). We are nearly there with PWAs perhaps? WASM then expands the available languages for the runtime, allowing common client/server languages and development processes to ease developer adoption. As/when a document needs rendering, then HTML/DOM/CSS is there to perform it's proper function, however many apps many be better off with a UX library (eg: SDL) or widget set (eg: wxWidgets) atop the runtime bindings.
If you were to remove the "web-based" part, it'd almost describe the beginning of OSes back in the day.
Which is perhaps what they are: The UI part of a vast "operating system" by which we access the "applications" of the internet.
I believe at the point you fundamentally push to render things other than markup, you start making a different application. And that is perfectly reasonable. I’m frankly surprised how well HTTP has held up to so many use cases. I long ago expected to see far more protocols for more kinds of apps, but HTTP seems to have solved so many problems well enough that it now hosts other protocols.
There are probably more protocols that could be written and hosted on other ports. Those would likely address many of these issues in a far better way. I just wonder when the industry will pivot back to building protocols and leave HTTP well enough alone.
I think we're past that as most recent innovations in the web space are either formats or evolutions of HTTP. Why reinvent the wheel if the wheel works well? What do you think?
HTTP/3 with QUIC seems like a great improvement, but it is changing HTTP. I don’t see why HTTP needs changing for most things. Why not update SMTP or FTP, as well? QUIC solves specific problems, and it might be better for those who need QUIC for it to have features better suited to their needs.
In some ways, this also feels like the mash of several formats into HTML5 to avoid name spacing. While we focus on and champion components within our own apps, we continue to avoid and break components in the infrastructure.
Therefore, I think we may see new protocols emerge as the weight of these complexities begin to cause problems. That could still be some way off.
I'm not sure it is changing HTTP, it's HTTP over UDP. The protocol is basically the same as HTTP/1 and HTTP/2.
QUIC solves a specific problem HTTP has because it sits on top of TCP though, basically pipelining
I'm not sure I follow the analogy with HTML5, sorry :( IIRC HTML5 was created to stop having to revise HTML as a a single unit and let things evolve at their own pace. Same with CSS 3 I guess. I don't think it's the same thing here: HTTP/3 is the result of the entire world using HTTP and needing to improve performance.
Could they have created a new protocol? Sure, but why break compatibility with millions of browsers, proxies, machines, software application and so on that understand and function through HTTP? I think the decision to rewrite the transport layer to be a smart one.
This doesn't mean that other protocols can't emerge, but it's okay not to throw away those that work already
Great article!
Doesn't a lot of this disagreement stem from --> "keep the web as it is, coz it's fine" vs "let's make it better by making mistakes along the way coz that's how software development works"?
What about making it better by sacrificing it?
We can learn this lesson from Biology, that the best way to avoid excessive optimization is the ultimate flexibility: Keeping the option on the table to throw out the code, or well abstracted parts of it, and rewrite that code or product from scratch.
It's a little known "dark" pattern of Software Design, from the shadows of Agile, called "Sacrificial Architecture."
I feel like this question sort of answers itself! Have you heard of Amazon? Gmail? Facebook?
My perpective: The web is for applications. The web is also for rich documents where reading and simple linking can take priority.
And there is an uncanny valley when you the latter is the sensible choice, but the former is the approach taken.
And many, the web is whatever Google tells them it is. Is AMP the web?
this :-)
No we don't... if the The One True Omniscient God Framework approach that Rails developers are constantly pining for was really the best one, then Rails would be ruling. It isn't; it peaked in 2012 or thereabouts, knocked off its perch by Node, among other technologies. It's a single point of failure and it cannot adapt quickly enough to the bewilderingly fast changing environment in which we operate.
Alternatively, you can pick one of the two frameworks that follow the model you advocate: Ember (actually inspired by Rails) or Angular (more of a C# flavour), both of which strive to be a nanny that remove as much as possible the need to (god forbid!) make your own decisions or (the horror!) having to learn new tools
You may want to consider stimulusjs.org/, which comes from the Rails universe (it was created by no other than David Heinemeier Hansson, the Rails Superstar) and does exactly what you want
Can confirm that the Stimulus framework works great for that exact use case. But if you're used to the more common frameworks, you might quickly miss the declarative "give me data, I give you DOM" approach they provide.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but Alpine.js gained some steam lately and might be a good middle ground between Stimulus and the "top dogs".
Not sure what you mean here. You can use very recent JS features in Node. We have async/await, async iteration, ES module imports, and more now. I've never felt the need to set up Babel in an Express project.
Probably aside from the article, which I largely agree with, but I think this is an odd point to try and make. This is true of any component library that has overhead above imperative JS. But there's nothing stopping you from using CSS in React, which is all Svelte does anyway.
Wrong, sorry :)
This isn't a CSS demo: twitter.com/Rich_Harris/status/120...
So one thing I wondered after reading Tom's article and now yours is how you feel about modern UI being so tied to node or javascript run times on the backend specifically. For instance if you were to be running something in Go and Phoenix you could dynamically render HTML on the back end and serve it up quite a bit faster that the current SSR environments based in Next or Nuxt or Sapper? So essentially somewhat the way Stimulus JS works where you can send over static HTML, rendered anywhere, by any type of server and the frontend could just hydrate that and build components from it.
This is the 'PHP with jQuery sprinkles' approach I mention in the article, except with shinier things than PHP and jQuery. I'm not a fan, personally.
Phoenix LiveView is an interesting take on the problem, but I suspect you hit a limit as to how ambitious your UI can be when deltas have to come across web sockets at a consistent 60fps.
So do you think it’s impossible for a framework to effectively hydrate static HTML not rendered by that frameworks specified renderToString method?
I really don’t know what these functions do under the hood to allow rehydration so I’m just curious if it would be possible and achieve a good frame rate.
I'm not so sure about that... IMO, so many single-page apps get this wrong. The native browser loading indicator is still a lot better than many SPAs, and unfortunately it's something that can't be triggered from JS (apart from ugly hacks like infinitely-loading iframes)
Server-side JS was a thing looooong before Node. I remember using Microsoft's version of JavaScript ("JScript") server-side via Classic ASP in the early 2000s. The issue back then was that JavaScript just wasn't quite that popular yet. ES5 wasn't around yet (it was all ES3), and there was a lack of good third-party libraries. But still, it was absolutely in use long before Node even existed.
What Node did do was cross-platform support, introduce a module system (CommonJS) as standard, and introduced the concept of easily obtaining third-party packages via "npm", taking ideas from similar systems like Perl's CPAN.
Beautifully written and very inspiring 😀👏👏👏
Universal Javascript is a need for only Juniors out of Bootcamp. And the cost is great. Just learn about parsers and you'll never look at a framework or template library ever again. Good on you for jumping on how terrible Gatsby is.
The primary thing that React brought to the table over the technologies before it was declarative UI. I get to think about what I want the HTML to be, not how to make it so. Most everything else that has was mentioned in the article has to do with the overhead of the implementation (of React or the web itself).
I think that the ideas behind Svelte hold promise for a more minimal implementation of declarative UI. But in either case, our tooling for web dev is still a gigantic spaghetti mess.
Really well said!
Thank you for writing this. I wish more community leaders like you would take the time to talk about where we are what is the way forward.
Thank you for standing out for your beliefs and engaging in controversy with others that are all hyped up every time a tech claims The One True Way.
Several points
running server-side code is expensive compared to just serving files but I am sure Amazon and Google love to sell you the cpu cycles.
Modern browsers auto update and are fairly compliant to HTML5. I don't write extra code to support the wonky Apple Safari or Opera. So I don't use poly fills. Basically, if your IE6 doesn't work that is not my problem.
Don't resort to npm if you need to know if a variable is an array. In other words, learn to code or at least learn to search for answers to your specific code problem.
Desktop computers and phones are very capable computers able to generate and render their own HTML. For dynamic interaction nothing is faster then a lean purpose build piece of code running on the client.
Stop using bullshit fantasy languages such as coffee script or typescript. Loose typing is a feature of JavaScript and works really well provided you write your own code and don't rely on the thousands of files pulled from npm.
The above will get rid of packages, most build script tasks and other black box bloat that breaks the moment some script kiddy is bored and deletes his one liner idiot script.
now you're down from several hundred dependencies to just 10 files or less you will find using deferred loading of the JavaScript perfectly manageable.
Client side UI libraries should run client side, generate their own HTML and bring along their own default css without dependencies. They should not force you into using any npm shit, complex build processes or use of modules.
In the old days of win32 API coding the UI classes were provided by the OS. Meticulously crafted to provide consistent visual feedback, keyboard support, indication for shortcut keys and so on.
I am working on just such a UI library unit which is about 1000 bytes in size capable to produce dialogs, pop-up menus, combo selectors, drop down and slide in menus looking as modern as those from Google without the need of any additional resources.
I tried many other so called libraries but there is always something missing. No arrow key support or the pop-up won't avoid window boundaries or its absolute bloat like Googles material thingy contraption.
Bro have you ever used typescript??? I used to use JavaScript. Most of the time there were hard bugs to find because of typing coerence problems and such. It was hell. Then I changed to typescript and boom: fewer bugs and a lot better autocomplete. And the best of it is that typescript doesn't affect your runtime performance since you can add it as Dev dependencie since it compiles to javascript ahead of time
With regards to static sites, are we not overthinking stuff? Visitors don't care how it works, if it works. They're also used to waiting for their next page to load.
I agree that it's difficult for dynamic sites.
Clients lately want the web to act like a native mobile application with slick transitions between pages and instant loads ...
I don't see why bypassing the update cycle is bad though. It might be not idiomatic, but for library authors I think it is OK. And it also depends on where we expect these 60fps. If your daily routine as a React developer is to animate 10000-polygon balls then yeah, you might be in trouble.
I think it is more use the right tool for the job. Some websites you can get away with mostly static with just a little bit of JS. Let's say you have a blog. Just some statically rendered HTML pages should be fine with some JS for the dynamic parts and then add in some instant.page functionality to preload a page. Maybe you could even add some transitions if it is preloaded, I have no idea.
Then for a business site maybe something like intercoolerjs could work.
Then when you want something that is fairly static but has some dynamic parts then you could use something like Svelte or some other lightweight framework.
I'm more of a back end dev. But I like to follow the front end world and experiment on the side. I'm building an offline first web site and using Stage0 for the more dynamic side of things. I'm using mostly vanilla js and small libs for everything else and it really hasn't been that bad of an experience.
The one thing that has been annoying with the way I'm architecting my site is that my templates are separate from my data. One of my goals was to keep the build steps minimal which has led me this way. But with something like Sinuousjs/Svelte/Sapper I could keep a small run time and get a better developer experience. So, for something that was more oriented for a team development environment I would probably lean towards those. But for my personal project it is fun learning all the native APIs and learning how to keep things lean on my own.
And with the ability to use sidecar proxy (service workers) on the front end it makes writing a custom router really simple.
I think the problem here is execution. I think there's the ideal of a fast, feature-full modern web (still maybe built on a foundation that isn't really made for it), but I think the issue is that it remains only an ideal.
The majority of attempts at executing on this ideal, I think fail to impress. They tend to be bloated, overly complex, and annoying to use.
In other words, the paradigm isn't necessarily the problem (at least not the whole problem), the people that build with it (or the clients that won't budge or have unreasonable requests) are the problem. I'm sure there are thousands of situations where developers have all the right priorities in mind, but simply aren't given the breathing room to implement them.
Shifting to a PWA paradigm means more can be accomplished, I suppose- but that includes the bad, and it seems par for the course to either:
A year and a half later, I think you're spot on.
This article is perfectly reasonable …except for that first paragraph, which is honestly one of the most disjointed, off-kilter, and oddly phrased things I've read. The tone of it is in complete contrast to what follows, like it was written by a different person.
It's like someone is about to serve you a nice meal but not before saying "You'll probably hate this, what with you being the kind of person you are."
But, like I said, if I can purge that antagonistic first paragraph from my mind, I can take on board the points in the article. I just wish I didn't have to do that kind of retroactive adjustment.
Perhaps you are trolling Harris? It's fairly typical of his style. Then again, he does work for a rather well-known ink house.
Funny I went through the comments and I generally don't see Vue being mentioned. It is in my opinion the simplest framework out there, given that especially it was not trying to fancy anyone with powerful features using coding patterns only computer science majors understand.
I don't think we should be using React as a reference because engineers at Facebook isn't really the best bunch of people you want to look to when it comes to simplifying things.
I have in my younger days wrote modules and pride myself for having understood and applied advanced computer science concepts. I deleted all those, and now only write modules as simply as I can.
And I highly agree with this article. And next I think the only way we can get there is to, at every step of the way remember to KISS.. Keep it simple, stupid.
Fulcro can also do server-side rendering before sending things to the client.
But, honestly... not everything should be in a browser. It's criminal and dangerous to do so. Because it takes away the data from the users and locks them into your platform. I know this is something businesses want to do, but it is bad for users.
Programs where actual work is created should be native software. Connecting information, and collecting it - sure, that has a place on the web. But stuffing entire office suites into a browser, or 3D programs, no, that is going to haunt us down the line.
Look what fat behemoths browsers have become these days. They reimplement half an OS because a few people decided that people are too dumb to download a program. Programs don't even have to be installed anymore these days, look at things like AppImage. It is download and run. Why not work on such things more?
During the Second World War, the Germans pioneered jet engines, but those aircraft lagged behind the established fixed-propeller aircraft because jet engines were at the bottom of their performance curve, while the established fixed-propeller were climbing towards their plateau. Now, we live in a world dominated by aircraft powered by jet engines.
We're seeing something similar here, and in time hand-built HTML websites and such should shift into the domain of training and hobbyist pursuits, while JavaScript frameworks become the established state of things.
I think it is more an issue of scale. I just worked on a project that was all static content because the project was so small, we really didn’t need additional tooling. Adding a framework and tools would have been overkill. It will always depend on the size and scope and capabilities of the project and team.
Thanks!!
...or searching for something against vitamin D deficiency because it boosts the immune system, just an example of web (not app) traffic flow
According to Gartner most users, from 12% to 89% in six years, opt in for an experience ahead of price and product:
youtube.com/watch?v=vMmCxx-FiWo
It's all about moments guys, and some try to get rid of it, isolating experiences within apps, but:
think.storage.googleapis.com/image...
I don't think it's necessarily true that only document navigation can provide a fast and install-less experience. I think from the beginning, distributing binaries and running them in browsers was not believed to be secure and there was rightfully no trust that different platforms would compile/interpret these complicated instructions the same way, so distributing documents was an easier path and it gained momentum.
Now however, you can expect browsers to support WASM, which is faster, lighter, has more secure packages, and really I think the reason that any applications are distributed as documents with scripts attached is because of the massive momentum differences. I think we will slowly see the abandonment of the web as we know it as more applications are distributed as binaries (not necessarily complete ones send at once, they can be requested too and render requested content text + images too) and the boundary of browser and OS blurs. I can't wait :)
Well a sever theoretically could send different WASM depending on the request path and request more content as "links" are pressed, not sure what you can call a website but the benefits of a website can be reaped without actually making a document now. I can imagine soon, if it doesn't already exist, server side rendering of HTML can instead output WASM + WebGL and speed up clients further. The point being that these "native" apps don't necessarily need installing and can still have the benefits of web apps and native apps combined :)
How would you define the layouting and styling of these WebGL apps in a way that does not result in every one of the apps becoming artisanal one-offs?
@caelumf so your saying we should write bytecode to generate documents? lol no.
The Lighthouse result for Gatsby is unfortunate and a bit unfair. Even Lighthouse points out at the bottom of the image that values may vary. I think the performance tab of Chrome shows a better picture of what happens during page load.
I didn't know "people" were arguing this! How do I join them?
you must not have met ken wheeler
And now I want to.
Amen
Fiendishly difficult? No, it's much, much easier to do this sort of tuning by hand. It's much, much harder to invent a way of avoiding having to do it by hand.
Nice article!
FYI, for those like me with motion sickness, those '1 page apps' tend to be less desirable than old-school 'new page per content'. Usually 1 full page transition is less stressful than all the constant transitions 1 page apps like to do.
Wondering what's your take on hybrid approaches like inertiajs.
Hey, it officially supports svelte!
Does that require that the client is only a JavaScript one?
When is next blog coming on Svelte? :)
The Modern Web badly needs garbage collection.
nah we should give up
points up
Solution: Web components + microfrontends
That's what I'm using on an experimental web app. But web components I'm using judicially.