Hacker News Reader

Comment by mibbiting | Hacker News Reader

This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices.

It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.

View on HN

While I totally agree about this site, it's stupid to disregard JS as a whole. Imagine websites like FB without JS - it would be horrible.

You don't have to imagine, you can try: https://mbasic.facebook.com/ - a lot of people prefer it to the standard monstrosity.

Good example. After getting used to the 1998 feel, it's much more practical than the usual one.

I use mbasic.facebook as my main was of interacting with Facebook. I acknowledge that my choice to disable JavaScript is unusual and will jump through some hoops because of that, but it's not excusable for a website to display /nothing/ pre-script like the OP does.

The great thing about this is that it's paginated. You can literally "scroll infinitely" through feeds without creating a ridiculous scroll offset and filling up browser memory (or losing Ctrl-F functionality due to Facebook's complex memory-saving exercises)

this makes me miss the OG fb. I dont use facebook much, but I think I would use it quite a bit more if this was the layout.

Nice but it could use a bit more whitespace, feels crowded.

There is a place for JS but most sites don't need it or at least don't need to drive the entire site. The problem is that Jquery now is 'bad' because it, what was it again, is not suitable for structuring big apps (ofcourse it is not; it's not meant to be an MVC or whatever framework; it's helper library to make Javascript easier to use). So it is obvious (and I see it all around me) that people build sites now like they are building Facebook, even though the site might have only 1 or 2 pages and no interactive functionality to speak off.

Still, this guy did it (took a long time between this site being up and the post on HN that instigated it) while the rest of the readers in that thread who thought it would be a good idea, including me, didn't. So kudos for 'just doing it' anyway.

Edit: I checked hours ago and then it was clean but apparently there is no moderation on it either... So this site would've taken literally less than an hour including hosting setup to put together? Still I didn't do it while I did like FuckedCompany and think it's good to have something like it.

This isn't a website like FB.

Huh? I always use the mbasic Facebook site: it's a much, much better experience.

It's a good thing mibbiting didn't disregard JS as a whole, then.

Perhaps we should be going back to writing websites in assembly.

See http://webassembly.org/ . While not raw assembly, we have to because of the js nonsense. This will ofcourse also increase the jsnonsense, cause now everything will be more efficient so we can put alot more crap.

I am aware of webassembly, and I'm sure that codedokode would explode if s/he were to notice that a website such as this was written using it.

It wouldn't run without JavaScript being enabled, for one.

In future publishers will probably use web assembly for DRM, for example, to render decrypted article text on a canvas so that it cannot be copied, zoomed, read aloud or viewed without advertisement and annoying popups. Maybe you will change your mind about Javascript then.

You jest, but in one of the discussions for EME, that exact case was brought up.

Only they wanted to drm javascript sent to the browser. We got rid of Flash only to see a new hydra head emerge. People clamoring for javascript applications should be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.

This is such a bad example, as JS is actually more low level than a declarative language like HTML.

I don't think this is a fair argument. Writing web pages as single page JS apps is _harder_ than writing them as server-side generated html responses. And in many cases (this one as a great example), the user experience is worse for having done so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com