the more i learn about web dev, the more i realise the reason for its mess up . There are 2 major problems in it : the people who create various important concepts and tools for web dev were 1) working on it without any collaboration and agreements on the philosophy and 2) were too stubborn on their ideology i guess.

There is no limitation to anything's functionalities, and the limits that are "defined" are badshit crazy. for eg:

HTML creator : "I am gonna make a language that would provide a skeleton to web page. it will just have the text and basic markers to let the scripting and styling engines/languages know which text is supposed to be rendered and how.
It won't provide any click or loading functionality.

someone: "So i guess opening a page or loading an image would be handled by JS or other programming language? also, bold , italic or division would be added via CSS?"

HTMLguy : Nah, my html engine would ALSO do that.

someone : what , why? won't that just be stupid and against your philosophy?
HTMLguy : WHAT? am too awesome, can't hear you
w3c , 50 yrs later : sorry can't change this, gotta support the 50 yrs of web dev and billion sites


CSS guy: I am gonna make the world's best beautifying stylesheet language to provide colors, styling, fonts and backgrounds to a page. every loadings and clicks would be handled somewhere else

Some1: cool, then clicks, hover and running of animation would be handled by JS only

CSSguy :Umm, i guess i could handle those.

Some1 wha-?

CSSguy : Thankyou Thankyou Thankyou for the nobel price!


JS guy : I am gonna make a god web programming language! It can do everything: add/remove html tags, add styling, control animations, control browser, handle clicks , perform operations, everything!

some1: cool! you must be making very large programming language with lots of modules.

JS guy: No! i am gonna keep it small. no built in classes and file imports! just use the functions directly. if someone wants the additional lib functionality, install them on your server

some1 : innovative! what's typeof NaN ?

JSguy :shut up.

  • 4
    🤔to some degree, you're not so wrong.
  • 1
    ...and nobody has the time to come up with something that will address all these issues because we’re all too busy trying to figure out all of this crap. + the server side part.
  • 0
  • 1
    The HTML tags b and i are something completely different from the presentation, which is why these tags are still in HTML. These are not replacement for strong or em which are also usually rendered as bold and italics because the semantics are different.

    You use b or i when you would use bold or italics in a professionally written document, e.g. for legal entities or book titles that are not citations.

    But that's another reason for the mess - people don't understand HTML and just shrow shit against the wall to see how it looks per default in most browsers.
  • 1
    I am pretty happy about not needing any JavaScript most of the time.
    The greatness of CSS 3 is what makes it possible to have a good-looking site wich does not need a single line of JavaScript to work as expected.
  • 0
    @Oktokolo It has also better performance and snappiness because JS runs single-threaded while the browser can schedule CSS stuff in parallel. If done right, it can even offload some stuff to the GPU. Abusing JS to do CSS' (and even HTML's!) job is a frequent ani-pattern in frontend.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop and i can set up my Content-Security-Policy to not allow JavaScript at all, wich gives a free extra layer of protection against some injection attacks.
Add Comment