Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwilk | Hacker News Reader

GitHub might be closed source, but it doesn't matter that much in practice. The code is not where most of its value is. The value is mostly in large community of users and reliable infrastructure.

Also, for me, GitLab's heavy reliance on JavaScript disqualifies it as a serious competitor to GitHub.

View on HN

>Also, for me, GitLab's heavy reliance on JavaScript disqualifies it as a serious competitor to GitHub.

How in the world using JavaScript makes a project less serious. Although Gitlab use mostly use Ruby and Go. JavaScript is used for Web UI only like most companies.

I'm guessing the key word here is reliance. Some of us are fine with sites that use JavaScript, but only if the core functionality still works when scripts are blocked.

If you're wondering why someone would feel this way, the reasons vary from person to person, but perhaps the best reason is that a site that becomes nonfunctional when client-side scripts are disabled puts itself at odds with basic web security precautions.

That JavaScript isn't a serious programming language is a decade old understanding of the ecosystem and a disregard to the current day use of the language. A lot has happened in the last decade to make JavaScript "more serious" like NodeJS, TypeScript, and React. Even on the back-end, it's becoming more and more popular.

Eh, I think they were talking about the UX for people that have JavaScript disabled, not about the JavaScript language.

To me it sounded more like "I can browse GitHub without JavaScript just fine, but GitLab doesn't even display the README, even though I'm using the exact same settings".

Sounds like a problem with the user, not a problem with the UX. There should be no expectation that a website be functional when JavaScript has been intentionally disabled. You never see people who have disable CSS complaining that a website looks terrible without any styling applied, why do people still expect that a website function to some arbitrary degree when they’re the ones who have deliberately disabled its functionality?

Chill.

It's both a user and UX problem. It's like when some part of a website's functionality is only available through Flash.

You know some (nowadays "most") people will have it disabled, and you're indirectly saying that you don't care about those users at all, which is not a bad thing.

It's the users' fault for not enabling Flash, sure, because they're not your target audience. But whether you provide a good UX for your non-target audience or not, it's your fault. And again, you're not obligated to accommodate those users, but that doesn't change the fact the you could give them a better UX but chose not to.

So, from this you can know that the users GitLab cares about are only a subset of the users GitHub cares about.

Being able to self host and fork are huge, if GitLab ever goes off in a bad direction there will be a fork instantly that can continue.

The advantage of a large community of users goes away as soon as you can implement federated identity, which can be as simple as OpenID. (Heh, OK, could probably be simpler than that, too.)

You'd need to federate more than identity if you want to penetrate GitHub's network effect.

>GitLab's heavy reliance on JavaScript disqualifies it as a serious competitor to GitHub

WTF

Reply on news.ycombinator.com