Hacker News Reader

Comment by james2doyle | Hacker News Reader

I like the statement they made on their jobs page:

Core Front-end Team

Passion for creating delightful and swift user interfaces.

Proficiency in HTML, CSS, and _an understanding that JavaScript can be used sparingly to enhance, not create, product experiences._

Ability to prototype rapidly.

Fun fact: At Kagi, we prioritize speed, to the point where *all functionalities of Kagi Search (except Stripe checkout and Maps) work perfectly without JavaScript*. We see JavaScript as a tool to enhance the UX, not create it.

View on HN

That frontend team statement alone makes it almost worth switching and thereby supporting their work. It is rare these days to hear such wise words.

Ah, their backend is in Crystal!

I like the sound of it, but I do notice that the link https://kagi.com/search?q=what+is+%25&r=no_region&sh=Qd1RlT2... which someone posted elsewhere in this discussion as an example doesn't work with JS disabled.

It should work without JS. It even works in eww (in Emacs). Looking at the source of the page, there's a redirect (meta http-equiv="refresh") wrapped in a <noscript>-tag to the same URL but with "/html" before the path.[1]. It seems the browser you tried doesn't handle that.

[1]: https://kagi.com/html/search?q=what+is+%25&r=no_region&sh=Qd...

You're right! The browser doesn't do redirects by default. looks like I'll need more coffee...

I already liked the domain name from the Mac shareware days of yore and I had sympathy for the business model.

But this… they might be winning my heart.

makes me wanna apply for a job there!

> Fun fact: At Kagi, we prioritize speed, to the point where all functionalities of Kagi Search (except Stripe checkout and Maps) work perfectly without JavaScript. We see JavaScript as a tool to enhance the UX, not create it.

This doesn’t matter to me at all. When will people quit trying to hold the web back for their own self served interests?

If supporting Kagi means supporting this idea that javascript should die, I doubt I’ll sign up.

Where in that quote does it say that "Javascript should die"?

They're just talking about using progressive enhancement, which is a common recommendation for making web applications faster, more reliable, more accessible and less fragile.

If you think not making the entire UI and replicating browser functionality with custom JS code is "holding the web back", sorry to inform you but you might be holding the web back.

It doesn't really matter whether a site uses JavaScript or not, but empirically, sites that insist on being almost all HTML and CSS work infinitely better — faster, smoother, adhering to standard idioms — than sites that rely heavily on JS. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but by and large it's a pretty good heuristic.

If the future of the web is a trend towards more and more overcomplicated, buggy JS garbage, I’m quite happy to hold it back.

If you think my opinion wasn’t born out of experience with the supposed future of the web, but rather some unjustified bias against the language or something, I dunno what to tell you.

Hyperbole much? Nowhere does it say JavaScript should “die”.

Today’s web is overflowing with unnecessary complication from trying to fit absolutely every type of content through a React shaped hole. It leads to a worse experience for everyone except the developer making the site, who gets to marvel at how fast they’re shipping new features.

I'm not sure what other impositions you've had to deal with that made this a hot button issue, but Kagi said nothing about getting rid of JS here. They even call out two use cases where they depend on JS for core features, what makes you think they want to remove JS support all together?

In my opinion, in not using JavaScript they are missing out on a really nice DX. This is the kind of app that could be highly optimized _despite_ using React or something similar. Knee-capping your hiring to Make A Point (tm) is silly.

Nice DX at the cost of UX.

The current state of web development has been ruined by putting developer experience over user experience. A great example that was shared on HN a few days ago: https://ericwbailey.website/published/modern-health-framewor...

This person couldn't use the site. But at least the developer got to see red squiggles when they didn't format their object properly!

If you see "not using JS as much" as knee-capping your hiring, then you are putting your personal preferences ahead of what is good for the users.

Why does that site even need JS? It looks just like an article.

Server side rendering in no way guarantees a bad DX. Such a statement is narrow-minded.

"Highly optimised" depends what you're optimising for.

I have yet to see a website that felt better to use after switching to React or similar. To me it always feels like a straight downgrade in UX. A site that felt nice and snappy suddenly becomes heavy and sluggish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com