Does anyone else miss the time when websites were just HTML and CSS instead of javascript applications?

Does anyone else miss the time when websites were just HTML and CSS instead of javascript applications?

Other urls found in this thread:

destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

we wouldn't have all the cool things we do today without javascript

like showing ransomware-containing ads that will break your CSS if they can't be loaded?

No. But I *do* miss when websites knew when JavaScript was actually called for, rather than using it for fucking everything.

HTML+CSS+JS !== SPA

>all the cool things
>javascript

I'd rather have lightweight, highly responsive function over some 12-year-olds idea of "cool things" and a website that is devoid of all useful content, but it takes 15 minutes between page loads to discover that.

> t. Sup Forums script bug that fucks every single page load for 1-2 minutes before it finally fails

web apps and all of SaaS nigga

explain to me how say Shapeways would work without JS? Fuck you

Don't you get tired reposting the same shit again and again for 10 years?
Why do you keep doing it, you're not going to get internet points on your anonymous profile that you can show off you fucking autist.
Why don't you think of something original to start a thread with?

My website is only html and css.

I miss when they were plain text and were named after a small, burrowing rodent.

Gopher is still there user, but it's really a desert…

>Gopher is still there user
Of course, and so are sites that are just HTML + CSS.

>but it's really a desert…
Again like HTML+CSS only sites, I think all you can really do is be an example and host one yourself. I use a hybrid similar to pygopherd where my Gopher server also speaks HTTP and can translate menus to HTML, so "normal" people can still have access without a Gopher client.

Personally have had my own pure HTML+CSS website for a while now, and my own IRC server, used to have email too, but that's a hassle...
I may add gopher on there in the future…

No.
JS allows component-based design/dev which is more efficient than loading in a massive global stylesheet every time. Being able to load in only what you need makes websites leaner and it would not be possible without JS.

People here assume JS = bloat

Sites that LITERALLY ONLY DISPLAY TEXT try and break themselves because I won't allow their "cool things" to run in the background while I read.

>loading a "massive global stylesheet" in the first place

>Being able to load in only what you need

Modern web devs don't know the meaning of the word "only" or "need"

yes.
all I want is to burn it to the ground and start over.

>makes websites leaner

We will keep saying it because it's true

enjoy bending over and taking webassembly and bitcoin miner rape up the ass because you refuse to stand up for yourself and think being a passive beta is a virtue

>!==
what

Javascript
destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

>Guys lets keep our CSS lean
>Okay
>5 iterations later
>shame.css is 600 lines
>refactors coming soon™
>A million bootstrap overrides
In practice massive stylesheets are a pain.

That's why we have frameworks that load in ONLY what you NEED. If all sites looked the way you want it the web would be a terrible place.

Yes leaner, that was my entire point, that a "bloated" JS library/workflow makes things leaner in practice.

It's funny because it's JS

>having a CSS file over 20 lines

There's your problem

Yeah 20 lines of CSS is much better than 5 in a JS component.

>load some online mag
>muh minimalist typography
>scrolling is stuttering, despite it's 99% text
ishygddt

no, fuck you, nigger

shapeways and bullshit could be java, we didn't need to contaminate everything with pajeet code so you could be lazy

I thought HTMP5 was supposed to address a lot of issues like this, is that not the case? I ask because you sound like you know what you're talking about.

fuck me, HTML5*

JS solved the problem faster.
JS has also been made far more accessible so more people can solve said problems.

How is HTML5 inaccessible to devs? Sorry to pester, legitimately interested.

I have a friend that does all his dev work in JS, maybe I'll just bug him. I'm in IT, but all this shit is way outside of my range of knowledge.

>5 lines of JS per page
>better than 20 lines of CSS for ALL PAGES

You're a special type of retard

Well I'm not saying HTML5 is inaccessible, but you'd be surprised how many devs won't touch HTML or CSS with a barge pole. It's more that JS has become vastly more accessible and plenty of them are more comfortable with JS.

You're retarded if you think that stylesheets stop at 20 lines in a production website/web app. I'm talking about webdev in the real world, not stylesheets for RMS's personal website or hobbyist dogshit you do in your own time unpaid.

>"real world"

You mean what made the internet shitty?

>go to site
>stuttering scrolling
>turn off javascript
>gets butter smooth, everything simply flies
explain this, JSfags

Don't bother with them man.

>devs are more comfortable with JS
That's just plain stupid behaviour though. If you can do something in HTML & CSS it's counterproductive and bad design to do it in JS. You'll make the site much harder to maintain in the long run.

Web languages have become feature-rich.

Did you ever actually develop a website 10 years ago? There were all sorts of hacks and hoops you had to jump through to achieve something simple and sites were tiny because the world around them demanded speed. We still demand speed but everything around us has progressed (internet speed, device speed etc). Do you honestly miss include a billion endifs to stop IE shitting the bed about basic styling? Do you miss hacks to force IE6 to understand transparency? Before we had to use fucking flash for animations and now we can use CSS and SVG's.

But there are ways to include CSS as part of the JS.
We use React here with Styled Components. Component-based design makes the site very easy to maintain, we have UI libraries with thorough documentation so devs can implement the frontend very easily without them trying to design it (they will try and it will look shit).

Many Javascript libraries are made by incompetent people, from what I remember. See jQuery UI for an example. And using Javascript to load any extra content you add delay, which verifiably turns people away.

Most sites would do just fine as simpler versions without all the JS cruft, because they don't rarely need the functionality it adds. Especially if it's for visual stuff.

*they rarely need

Interesting stuff. Thanks for cool and educated answers that clearly come from someone who's dealing with this shit instead of armchair plebs.

>what is a file upload dialog
>upload 3D file
>enter address and billing
>receive print
where is the JS in this equation? all of it could easily be plain html with serverside processing.

No, you never seen prossibilities, of what it can do. Because you use shittiest javascript applications, I have done interfaces in javascript you never even dreamed of, and you can't say you would evolve faster in c, without reprasing atleast.

Well things like jQueryUI aren't relevant here because we design it all in house (I am one of the designers), it's generally bad practice to use such things but it's better than people who can't design sites using their own styling.
I agree that it would be better to use bootstrap in most scenarios as opposed to JS UI kits.

I think the reason why a lot of sites implement jQuery whilst using 1% of the functionality is because it's so easy to learn and understand that anyone can use it without properly understanding it.

I'm actually posting for work lul.
Glad I can help user.

>makes things leaner in practice

Yeah, because that worked out so well.
It's like you forgot Flash and how awful 90% of it was.
Modern websites would just be using Java instead of JavaScript if it continued to evolve and JS was nuked.
I've used a few good Java and Flash websites over the years, still use a few Flash ones now.
I remember there was even a decent forum done in Flash that worked as if it were HTML. It was seamless as fuck. Even had URL tracking so you could link people to forum posts.

>5 lines of JS per page
>20 lines of CSS for all pages
Why is the JS suddenly limited to per-page?
You do know you can write-once-run-everywhere for JS, right?
You can do page-specific CSS too, you know.

The cunts that put all their CSS and JS in one mega-file need to be punched in their fucking soul.
There is no fucking need for that shit.
Fuck you "common.js" pricks.

*Posting from work

I'm sure there are many sites in the top 100 that have horrid JS implementations, JS doesn't always make things slower. Also top 100 sites are likely to have a ton of tracking and analytic scripts running as big data = big bux.
It wouldn't surprise me if that 31% load speed difference is caused solely by something like Hotjar.

>People abuse jquery
>Websites are shit
>Javascript gets a bad rep
>React fixes most issues
>No one gives Javascript a chance anymore

Javascript is fun and kinda fast guys pls

>javascript is kinda fast

To be fair, it's come a long way. You can do fairly complicated things in ms ranges.

javascript is not even the biggest bottleneck on a website. rendering is. that's why direct2d browsers like edge or ie are so incredibly much faster than chrome or slideshowfox despite not having crazy optimized js execution.

those advantages are completely moot now that pajeet weblords can't do ANYTHING without JavaScript and JQuery

> bloat that drains my battery
> "cool things"

kill yourself

JS makes sites slower. You can load only the css you need on each page so I don't know what you are talking about (you don't know either).

Javascript is used to make websites more responsive once loaded, but more importantly, to make websites more like web applications with rich features.

Had a retarded nigger coworker who wanted to use some bullshit called Glamor to take a nicely written CSS file and inject it into the page as a bunch of style attributes.

So instead of you got

I just chalked it up to him being a nigger, but then I saw picrelated and started crying

>you never even dreamed of
Oh really now, show me an example

THIS

That's completely retarded. Why would you want such a thing?

Well, what's bad about simple and tiny sites? Why are simple and tiny programs in general bad?
I'm not a suckless/cat-v nuthead, but nor am I a brainlet mouthbreather.

>JS makes sites slower
Yes? Where did I say it made them faster?

>You can load only the css you need on each page so I don't know what you are talking about.
What aren't you understanding here?

Things like styled-components allow you to load in the CSS for only what is needed, this is better than having a giant stylesheet that caters for everything on page load, that's what I'm referring to with "leanness".

I'm not saying small sites are to be avoided, I'm saying JS allows component-based design which is very efficient.

It goes without saying that you should try and use html/css on basic sites and only use JS when you need to but a lot of people on here just hate JS without understanding that it's necessary in web apps.

yes, said without a trace of irony

a giant stylesheet is best. it loads once and is then cached by the browser for subsequent loads.

oh so THAT'S what makes things load for longer
really makes you think

Tbh, you can do a lot of cool shit in JS, and the thing itself is made for a number of reasons.

And it's not so much the fault of the language, as having a bunch of lazy and/or timeconstrained devs taking shortcuts and using whatever cheesy, broken, flavour-of-the-month libraries and frameworks they cobbled together to make shiny shit.

microsoft published some good stats on it when they first upgraded to gpu rendering in ie.

But the problem IS WITH THE CONCEPT OF "WEB APPS".
The internet - specifically the web- was meant to be an information system, and that is very clear in the structure and implementation of standards and protocols such as HTML, HTTP(S), Email, IRC, XML…

This shit is worse than all the polyfills for older versions of internet explorer. For example websockets are supported in IE 10+, but one of my classmates uses SignalR instead of the build in websockets of the browser.This shit adds hundreds of kilobytes to the js bundle because it has a fallback that is basically rebuilding websocktes in javascript, which won't be used (out project uses the await and async keywords, so legacy browser support is out the window anyway).

Even when shit has to run on mobile devies, people aren't willing to optimize. When figuring out the documentation takes longen than writing a class yourself, you shouldn't do that npm install.

>The internet - specifically the web- was meant to be an information system, and that is very clear in the structure and implementation of standards and protocols such as HTML, HTTP(S), Email, IRC, XML…
And until Xerox, all computers were a bunch of CLI-only number crunchers that were built to be corporate servers and workstations, and that is very clear in the structure and implementation of Linux and Windows.

Except we realised we could bolt a ton of cool stuff over it to do more than that.