https://gitlab.com/hsleisink/orb/-/blob/master/public/apps/e...
https://gitlab.com/hsleisink/orb/-/blob/master/public/apps/e...
Would it only depends on my own preferences, I would use only letters and dash for any identifier in code bases I work with.
The fact that you have to distinguish between literal strings and interpolated values
String formatting functions use special strings themselves.
You mean fashionable?
> Perhaps we have sunk too deep into the SPA/API rabbit hole that we can no longer appreciate simplicity
I’m certain of it.
No one is forcing people to use React, Svelte, Vue, etc. The sentiment of wishing for a simpler time has never felt right to me, cause no one is policing what people use. If you feel like people are forcing you into frameworks, I’m sorry, and I feel like I have a piece of advice.
If you truly believe a framework isn’t worth it, tell your team why. You might be right, and you might be wrong.
I’ve worked at large and small companies; discussions about what technologies to use have always been welcome. I’ve advocated for and won when making a case for “simpler solutions,” when it makes sense.
All that said if you think using a framework framework === complexity for the sake of complexity, you’re wrong. OP I’m not saying you think this, but I have to imagine that it’s the sentiment of at least part of the folks who made this the top comment.
For large organisations it's easier to manage a team of workers with narrow specialisations than a single, but almost equally productive developer like here.
It's particularly visible in banking applications, where modules are almost completely independent and built by non-overlapping teams, so they take forever to load due to the limitation on concurrent requests in browsers.
Most of them are classic multi-page PHP apps. It's terrible. I can't stand how it always reloads each time I click on something. I remember it didn't bother me much in the past when everything was like that, but today we have much better options.
I went for a SaaS built as a SPA. When I click on something, for example to create a new entity, I get a modal/side-panel immediately. When I want details, I get them much quicker and can return back to the listing immediately.
> It's particularly visible in banking applications, where modules are almost completely independent and built by non-overlapping teams, so they take forever to load due to the limitation on concurrent requests in browsers.
They just can't code SPAs well. It's perfectly possible to have both quick loading times and very separate modules.
They're visibly snappier than server-rendered frontends, or even frontends with JS sprinkled on top when done correctly, but large organisations generally don't do them correctly.
And yet here you are, using HackerNews just about every day, which works exactly the same way. No SPA. No 'forever loading', just a classic, fast SSR webapp that treats individual pieces of content as documents, just like how the web was designed to work.
It also doesn't bother me much on here because HN is much faster than these systems - no wonder, since it's just a forum. But try updating the details of 50 employees, each separated into 5 subpages, when you need to wait 750ms to have each page load. And you need to load that page multiple times - first to get into the detail, then to put it into "edit" mode, then to save it - and then you can switch to a different subpage of the detail.
Wait, what? If it's taking most of a second for a page to load, then that's the problem, not that it isn't a SPA.
Using the phone that's very annoying. I have to long press on the entry's link on the header, open in a new tab, recheck the message trail, and go back to the first tab to end writing.
So simoly as that, I could think of lots of times where a SPA-style dropdown editor box inserted in the conversation view, would be more useful than the current HN's reply page.
If the reply page contained the whole discussion, though, the problem would be equally solved too. So I'm not saying that an SPA would be 100% better, just mentioning an example that occurred to me.
Considered by whom?
I mean, let's be real; most of what people were using jQuery for was stuff like `querySelector`, `closest`, `classList`, etc... For those people, pure Javascript is JQuery now. If you don't want a framework and you don't want reactive/declarative interfaces, then you probably don't need a library.
I would say the same thing (maybe to a lesser degree) about "standard" libraries like Lodash. Native Javascript has a `reduce` function now, it's widely supported. And if you have to target any of the very few browsers that don't have it, then polyfilling is (usually) the better choice. See also Blueberry and promises; just use JS promises, they're fine.
I picked up jQuery because JS in browsers weren't cross-compatible for ages. I don't see a need to stop unless jQuery stops being cross-compatible.
So, it's not needed anymore. I also started using jQuery in order to get cross-browser support for handy stuff, but since that stuff is now cross-browser without using any 3rd party libraries at all, there is no need to use extra bandwidth and CPU cycles from your users to download something that basically already exists.
There are many reason not to use Jquery for greenfield projects now, but bandwith is not one of them.
The first is thankfully not needed anymore, the second hasn’t been matched in simplicity and power by the native one, unfortunately. Not by a long shot.
If you don’t believe me, check out one of the “You Might Not Need jQuery” sites. They read much like “you might not need firelighter, stones and sticks are all you need”.
EDIT: oh, I just realized that's exactly what you were saying!
I usually do something like:
const $ = function(selector) { };
All of them are basically just tiny <10 LOC shims for a lot of built-in functionality. But that way I still get the niceness/terse-ity of jQuery, but not the bloat and overhead of it being able to still do:
$('.selector').one('submit', () => false)
document.querySelector('.selector).addEventListener('submit', () => false, {once:true}).You're not wrong about logos, but I find that webp will often squish that sort of thing down to 10-15k.
It's a reasonable argument to make that minimizing 3rd-party library use is premature optimization for most websites, but if you get to the point where you need that optimization then it is 30kb and it won't be cached (CDN caching is a myth, CDNs are only useful for minimizing server load/response-time they aren't shared between domains) and it will block your initial app logic.
I am sympathetic that worrying about 30kb is overkill for a lot of apps. But if you are in a position where you're really optimizing for speed to the point where even megabytes matter, then those 30kb are not cached and they block page logic from executing until they're downloaded. And that remains true even if there's another performance change that would be higher impact that you're not allowed to make.
If anything, being not allowed to reduce asset size for your website would make efficient JS bundling matter more, since it's one of the few resource bundles you'd be allowed to do something about and it would be pulling double-duty to try and slightly cover for the inefficient fetches that you can't change.