To all those web developers who load their entire fucking website in JavaScript - even on fucking news articles where JAVASCRIPT ISN'T EVEN FUCKING NEEDED, and top it off with a heavy as shit framework, BURN IN FUCKING HELL!!!

😥I’m sorry. Please don’t burn me, I may enjoy it too much.

@C0D4 poor dude. That is a deep one.

@Tayo Becaaaause?

@ScriptCoded because this: https://twitter.com/chordbug/...

@succcubbus Yeah, coercion. One of the many great features of Javascript that makes it so versatile

I have seen this practice for the first time just recently. Can someone point me to a reference of this pattern or more info about it... a place to find a 'why' and shit like that plz

@cobolplz just install NoScript and you'll see all the websites that refuse to show you their content until you whitelist their domain for JavaScript... It's a real problem.

@Condor couldn't Agree more. Damn i don't understand why people like to design their website programmatically, instead of marking up. Personally if that website is somewhat Professional, all the way using heavy shit is ok for me, the content and UI/UX is pleasing.

I built my websites in Nuxtjs. But since it's server side rendered or prerendered you can visit it without any JS. Ofcourse, interactions won't work but you can still visit it. But with jQuery I prefer to not use it. Last week I saw on a site I made that I used jQuery for a lightbox. I searched for a pure js one and removed the other one + jQuery

@Alice you don't know what websites those are so maybe you shouldn't judge. If it's a stupid portfolio I don't built it in JS lol.

@Condor @Alice also, your point is terrible. Often a website with a proper frontend system is faster than reloading the page, and more user friendly But it depends on the case. And not talking about newspapers, if you get a good newspaper you don't have that shit. You can visit NY Times without JS and it works fine.

@Alice you're right. If it is possible to do it with css then it should be done with css. Like navs

Things that are ok to do in js on a static textual website:

- theme switching (should fallback to a server side solution)
- hamburger menus (should fallback to the menu always open)
- an image viewer thingy

What is not ok:
- carousel (they are never ok)
- parallax effect (they can be done in css)
- little animations (use css animations)

@Alice you’re right, I tend to forget the magic of checkbox.

<script src="no.js"></script>

you're all talking about the outermost layer of frontend, rendering stuff, markup, css , etc...

you bring frameworks around in order to have code reuse across projects, testability and to move part of the logics on the client (which cpu power comes for free, from a BE perspective)

a crappy website is a crappy website, independently ofJS.
the role of JS is mostly to wire and instrument XHR calls to logics and, by reacting to their responses, produce decent HTML/CSS
you don't use frameworks to make "websites", portolios etc. if you do, you got no idea of what you're doing and what frameworks are for.

it's not 5K lines of decent JS that make a client struggle.
but shitty code does, as usual (good code in wrong place is still shitty code, btw)

Vuejs Ajax module load :P

I think to become a gritty front end dev, you need solid experience in blowing up browsers with applications destined for space