6 ms·
This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices. It's a static list of items. Hardly v
by mibbiting 10y ago
This is why computers become slower and slower, and people have to upgrade. Because lazy developers make idiotic choices.
It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.
- tokenizerrr 10y agoPerhaps we should be going back to writing websites in assembly.
- ddorian43 10y agoSee http://webassembly.org/ http://webassembly.org/ . While not raw assembly, we have to because of the js nonsense. This will ofcourse also increase the jsnonsense, cause now everything will be more efficient so we can put alot more crap.
- tokenizerrr 10y agoI am aware of webassembly, and I'm sure that codedokode would explode if s/he were to notice that a website such as this was written using it. It wouldn't run without JavaScript being enabled, for one.
- codedokode 10y agoIn future publishers will probably use web assembly for DRM, for example, to render decrypted article text on a canvas so that it cannot be copied, zoomed, read aloud or viewed without advertisement and annoying popups. Maybe you will change your mind about Javascript then.
- mitchty 10y agoYou jest, but in one of the discussions for EME, that exact case was brought up. Only they wanted to drm javascript sent to the browser. We got rid of Flash only to see a new hydra head emerge. People clamoring for javascript applications should be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.
- inflagranti 10y agoThis is such a bad example, as JS is actually more low level than a declarative language like HTML.
- the_gastropod 10y agoI don't think this is a fair argument. Writing web pages as single page JS apps is _harder_ than writing them as server-side generated html responses. And in many cases (this one as a great example), the user experience is worse for having done so.
- romanovcode 10y agoWhile I totally agree about this site, it's stupid to disregard JS as a whole. Imagine websites like FB without JS - it would be horrible.
- beagle3 10y agoYou don't have to imagine, you can try: https://mbasic.facebook.com/ https://mbasic.facebook.com/ - a lot of people prefer it to the standard monstrosity.
- eeZah7Ux 10y agoGood example. After getting used to the 1998 feel, it's much more practical than the usual one.
- ecma 10y agoI use mbasic.facebook as my main was of interacting with Facebook. I acknowledge that my choice to disable JavaScript is unusual and will jump through some hoops because of that, but it's not excusable for a website to display /nothing/ pre-script like the OP does.
- lucideer 10y agoThe great thing about this is that it's paginated. You can literally "scroll infinitely" through feeds without creating a ridiculous scroll offset and filling up browser memory (or losing Ctrl-F functionality due to Facebook's complex memory-saving exercises)
- sealthedeal 10y agothis makes me miss the OG fb. I dont use facebook much, but I think I would use it quite a bit more if this was the layout.
- mixmastamyk 10y agoNice but it could use a bit more whitespace, feels crowded.
- tluyben2 10y ago