183

I saw a guy building a website today.
No React.
No Vue.
No Ember.
He just sat there.
Writing HTML.
Like a Psychopath.

Comments
  • 24
    I see you have met one of my interns...
  • 40
  • 34
    I do this every day 😅
  • 3
    Not even HAML?!
  • 27
    That stupid dipshit still doesn't get it with the "devrant" tag. Motherfucker.
  • 3
    Now that's a very rare encounter with such creatures these days, too hard to be found.
  • 7
    That reminds me of that one talk. It was called a case against frameworks or something like that. It was done by one of the Django creators. Displaying some of the downsides of frameworks and the upsides of vanilla js...

    And as someone monkeying around with webpack configs for hours today, because Safari could not interpret our bloody webapp, I think he has a point.
  • 4
    @TheCommoner282 He made a case for vanilla python too? He should have!
  • 13
    I write HTML when that is what I need. I actually used bloody JQUERY recently. Just needed something to spice up a form. Tried to use a react lib for nicer date entry. Sure it looked a little better than bare browser fields but the damn thing pulled down 75 MB of shit just for that. Most of these libraries are insane junk. Good luck when they bug it up. After all, the only constant in programming is that simpler is better.
  • 12
    @Root Keep it up! You're one of the last making lightweight websites!
  • 10
    I’ll just leave this here:

    https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
  • 3
    So?
  • 0
    like you need all the list you gave 🙄
  • 3
    I had not done html and js for a long time. I went to create a regular html and js site and had zero need for any supporting frameworks. It was a simple page for an embedded system. I did little color changes and animations. It was way easier than I had remembered in the past. I tested the code on firefox, edge, and chrome and they all looked the same. I would say that is progress.
  • 0
    That was funny
  • 11
    https://brutalist-web.design/

    If you have no need for Javascript, don't use it.

    If you have no need for CSS, don't use it.

    I'm not really a webdev anymore (more into DB, microservices & solutions architecture), but if I need to display something in a browser I tend to start with plain HTML.

    If I want it to look a bit better, I usually add purecss, which is a very minimalist bootstrap-like framework. If I need some JS and I'm too lazy to write JS from scratch, I might check microjs for a suitable library.

    Oh yeah, and shit like babel? Nah... if your browse doesn't understand ES6, that's your problem.

    I get not everyone can be THAT nonchalant, but don't diss the plain HTML frontend dev, unless your shiny React app loads fucking fast and is a joy to use on your mom's $199 Chromebook.
  • 8
    Wait... I'm not the only one that does?!?!

    If you have a static site, ... Use. Vanilla. Languages. Not. Fucking. Libraries
  • 0
    @Ubbe you don't download a complete library for a single form...

    Either write it in JavaScript or use it everywhere. Otherwise it's bloated 97% of the times.
  • 1
    @Jilano sometimes using a framework is improving loading speed compared to vanilla js (unless spending multiple years on optimizing shit)
  • 0
    @Codex404 I don't but a lot of people do. The only time I can think of when something like React would actually make your app faster is if you have huge dump as dom. Which makes no sense but unfortunately is not uncommon.
  • 2
    @Codex404 It's true that a good framework will be faster than botched vanilla JS, but some people also need to be reminded that you can make a website without it. Too many nowadays don't seem to know that.
  • 0
    @Jilano that is true indeed
  • 4
    Guess that I'm a psychopath in this case.

    I mean I just like everything being minimalistic.
    I want speed on my websites. I want to have efficient file transfer between the server and the client. For that I need code that is optimized. A server that is properly configured and doesn't consume too much. Minified and cached code. CDNs. More text and less visual media. If there's visual media, compress it beforehand.
    Use Brotli web compression. Etc.

    To me speed is the most important thing in programs. Then comes beautiful visual design to better the user experience.

    Oh and the code itself should he pleasing to my eyes. It should be pre-planned and clean code.
  • 0
    knockout FTW !
  • 0
    @-ANGRY-CLIENT- No the most important thing in ANY program : Are your users happy ? are they ready to pay ? And in 2019 it boils down to : Is it pretty ? Is it easy to use ?
    Speed a good. But if your minimalistic solution response time is 5ms and mince bloated full .NET with 1000 plugins solution is 50ms, end user will not see the difference. And I can just through more power on it, if needed
    I think there is a middle ground somewhere
  • 0
    @NoToJavaScript The reality is that the bloated app is usually not 50ms, most apps end up more like 500ms backend and 5 seconds frontend.

    At that point users wouldn't even call your app "slow", but they will subconsciously start associating your brand with a feeling of being slightly annoyed.

    And in my opinion, "beautiful" and "minimalism" aren't even opposites -- a website doesn't need Javascript at all to be pretty, and it doesn't need that much CSS either.

    When you're setting up a product where slick frontend stuff will help attract customers, I understand that devs grab a framework like react/vue/angular.

    But even then you'll end up with a more acceptable experience if you are conservative with libraries, cut feature bloat like a madman, keep request/response and content on a page clean and focused.

    Oh, and I don't think any end user has ever thought: "I don't like this website, because the menu items and modal windows aren't animated".

    Simplicity is beautiful.
  • 0
    @NoToJavaScript

    Bloated apps also don't scale well by adding more power.

    More users can be handled easily by adding load balancers and servers, but bad architecture or feature bloat is very hard to outcompute.

    You are constrained by end user bandwidth and latency -- and with some types of data queries the complexity grows exponentially instead of linearly with the amount of data.
  • 0
    @bittersweet There are different levels of “bloat” and configuration.

    For example, current project which I consider a little “bloated” : ASP.Net web forms.
    But, it’s structured as a MVC project. Web forms are only used as a “Html renderer with some inline C# for the things like localizations”. The usual “slow” things are : Session, ViewState, events : all disabled. So I can add servers with no problems (No session usage) : it scales very well.

    EntityFramework is used (Including for large data sets for reports). It’s a bit slower than using stored procs, but it gives you so much more flexibility and development speed.
    The back end average time is around 75ms. (More for things like reports)
    On front end : knockout. It is our biggest bottleneck for pages with a lot of data (More than 10.000 lines of editable data sometimes).
  • 0
    @bittersweet You'll be surprised. One client dropped our app because in one of updates the operation he used to do in 1 click, became 2 clicks (But with more options).

    People in 2019 are insane
  • 0
    @bittersweet Here, the stats for last 7 days
  • 3
    @bittersweet i've actually found it far easier to create accessible (aria) websites through this approach than through various "frameworks".

    It's almost like when you put the content first the content is easier on everyone.
  • 0
    How did you find me?
  • 1
    I have a similar problem now where I can't keep up with the web development trends and frameworks so I think I might just go back to a static HTML personal website
  • 1
    @TheCommoner282 is that available somewhere?
  • 1
  • 1
    @TheCommoner282 enjoyed it, thx!
  • 1
    More better: writing XHTML
  • 0
    Kudos for the quote.
  • 0
    Nah, every web coding newbies would make websites with only HTML. After learning CSS, they move on to make websites look good with CSS. I was there, too.
  • 0
    I do this with my plain portfolio website... With bootstrap 😣
  • 0
    Does he write it on plain notepad and not using any big-ass IDE, like a freaking maniac ?
Add Comment