Comment by scrollaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrollaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Hydration, lazy loading, managing flashes of unstyled content, a lot of this is built to address things that wouldn't be problems if we treated the browser as the dojo that it is and not be so dang wasteful.

What's your point here, exactly? That if random wordpress blogs and recipe websites were less wasteful, the problems these solutions are addressing would not exist?

I can make you an extremely non-wasteful webapp which still needs to display a hundred images on a page (because reasons), so lazy-loading the images is still important.

I can find you a very well-optimized website that is only a few kilobytes, but still loads slow as shit because their network is bad and I'm on a terrible 3G link. FOUC would still be an issue.

I think the point is people should use the correct tool for the job. Instead, sites that should (or can) be static sites are unnecessarily using some JS framework.

Newer JS frameworks like Svelte and SolidJS can be almost transparent to the user, though - with no need for bootstrapping a complex codebase in the client before they can interact with the site. I'm guessing that OP describes a further development along these lines.

i think you're conflating static sites with sites that lean heavily into JS frameworks. plenty of sites are not static, cause they need that whole session thing, and don't use JS frameworks

HTML has native support for lazy-loading images these days. No need for added JS.

You can lazy-load a lot more than images. In my example, yes I wouldn't use js for it, but it's irrelevant to the point I was making. My read of GGP is that "lazy loading is useless because you shouldn't have so much content that it's needed, ever", which is a bad take.

it does, but when design and top brass say it needs to fade in - back to some JS you go

> FOUC would still be an issue.

hell, just using webfonts can cause FOUC - no JS needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com