[flagged]
Let‘s say you have 5-7 dependencies to load, but 3 of them timed out because your train entered the tunnel. Your app ends up in incorrect state, fails silently and UX degrades unpredictably. This is where the conversion often drops visibly and the reason SSR is now a go-to solution for any marketing website.
Regardless, this isn't really restricted to the usage of JavaScript. The website would likely have pretty bad UX if only half of the CSS loaded correctly, but no one programs defensively around it being absent.
An user opening a web page is not expecting a full-blown app with multi-second loading times. If that happens, they bounce, and you loose revenue. Web is supposed to have very short time to first content paint and very short time to interactive, the shorter, the better, less than 0.5s is the goal. It can deliver that, if built properly. Many SPAs, bulky JS apps are built this way for developer convenience, not for end users. The only real use case for SPA is when you deal with a lot of local data. A spreadsheet, document or image editor, a diagram tool (but then wasm is probably a better choice).
You may say, you are not building enterprise grade frontend. But if you are small enough, you don’t need SPA either.
Is it just that you're ashamed that you have made such poorly designed web apps that can't handle a few broken HTTP calls?
Is it just that you can't simply accept that JavaScript is a requirement for the modern web which is what this entire discussion is hinged upon?
You dismissed A/B testing as unnecessary. That is sufficient for this judgement. A/B tests mostly run on the happy path scenario of a customer: An A/B test breaks, the company is losing money at light speed.
The loading-related issues overall may eat 0,5-1% of the revenue. It is not something that should be an afterthought.
I didn't dismiss A/B testing. I'm just saying that, if the analytics don't load on the client, you should already have A loaded and ready to render. It's literally just a matter of a try/catch, and you shouldn't be waiting to load this stuff on the client-side anyways if this is truly supposed to be the "Happy Path".
Yes, I know that legacy software like Google Tag Manager requires client-side integration, but I would argue that is an orthogonal concern. You don't need to use that for your A/B testing. It's pretty easy to integrate this stuff into SSR-- especially if you stream in the HTML. This is why cookies exist.
And, again, none of this changes the central concept of this comment thread: JavaScript is necessary for the modern web experience.
Literally none of those things are necessary for a working website. If your site breaks when your analytics don't load, then that's just horrible design at any scale.
And if they're deliberately going somewhwre where there's no signal for an extended period of time, and really want it to work, they'll ensure they've loaded everything before doing so.
And I say this as someone who is developing a pwa that is for people with low end phones and very inconsistent and/or connections. I'm very cognizant and empathetic to their situation.
Something like Datastar would enable this with like two html attributes, and only require 10kb of js (and would also allow for endless other things via declarative html).
Good that you are asked. Did I say anything like that in my comment above?
Downvotes should give you a hint that the few users that know what javascript is, don't like it, and the rest of them, if they learned, most likely won't like it either. Your attitude shows that you don't care.
Let me get this right, you're saying that people on HackerNews don't know about JavaScript-- one of the most popular programming languages in the world?
Exactly! I agree with you 100%! I, and many others, don't like the modern web experience and JS is the foundation that makes it all possible.