13 ms·

No React to be found (and good riddance). It's two vanilla JavaScript files: https://ciechanow.ski/js/base.js https://ciechanow.ski/js/base.js https://ciechan

No React to be found (and good riddance). It's two vanilla JavaScript files: https://ciechanow.ski/js/base.js https://ciechanow.ski/js/base.js https://ciechanow.ski/js/moon.js https://ciechanow.ski/js/moon.js

bradarner 2y ago
Cheers...Chrome dev tools must have tricked me. Also nice that the author didn't minify it. Interesting to read through.
undebuggable 2y ago
Funnily, this JavaScript would not pass through most modern job interviews.
- floxy 2y ago
  For those of us not in the know, why not?
  - undebuggable 2y ago
    Inconsistent style. Once global functions (that's so 2000), once prototypes (that's so 2010). No lazy loading, no modularization, no state management. Mixing variable declarations with initializations, one "var" declaration in the code. He probably haven't heard about TypeScript, transpilation, and doesn't understand static typing. Fells like a show off. That guy is an absolute no-no.
    - ghxst 2y ago
      Was going to ignore this comment until the last 2 sentences. I rarely come across sites / articles that do this good of a job at explaining something I think calling it a "show off" and saying the author is an "absolute no-no" is a bit rude and I don't agree with it either. If anything I appreciate the code as it is, it's very readable at least to me.
      - undebuggable 2y ago
        My comment was /s of course. JavaScript from 2000-2010 era can do wonders especially if you leverage modern APIs and enormous performance of modern browsers, instead of silting it up with transpilation, frameworks, and layers of modules. Unfortunately simplicity is signalling a beginner and amateur in enterprise working environment.
        ghxst 2y ago
        Dang my bad, I feel silly for not catching the sarcasm in hindsight. Apologies.
TrackerFF 2y ago
17.6k LOC just for one post to educate and entertain people. Beautiful.
klabb3 2y ago
As usual, it's not the tech.. it's the business model.

bradarner 2y ago

Cheers...Chrome dev tools must have tricked me. Also nice that the author didn't minify it. Interesting to read through.

undebuggable 2y ago

Funnily, this JavaScript would not pass through most modern job interviews.

floxy 2y ago
For those of us not in the know, why not?
- undebuggable 2y ago
  Inconsistent style. Once global functions (that's so 2000), once prototypes (that's so 2010). No lazy loading, no modularization, no state management. Mixing variable declarations with initializations, one "var" declaration in the code. He probably haven't heard about TypeScript, transpilation, and doesn't understand static typing. Fells like a show off. That guy is an absolute no-no.
  - ghxst 2y ago
    Was going to ignore this comment until the last 2 sentences. I rarely come across sites / articles that do this good of a job at explaining something I think calling it a "show off" and saying the author is an "absolute no-no" is a bit rude and I don't agree with it either. If anything I appreciate the code as it is, it's very readable at least to me.
    - undebuggable 2y ago
      My comment was /s of course. JavaScript from 2000-2010 era can do wonders especially if you leverage modern APIs and enormous performance of modern browsers, instead of silting it up with transpilation, frameworks, and layers of modules. Unfortunately simplicity is signalling a beginner and amateur in enterprise working environment.
      - ghxst 2y ago
        Dang my bad, I feel silly for not catching the sarcasm in hindsight. Apologies.

TrackerFF 2y ago

17.6k LOC just for one post to educate and entertain people. Beautiful.

klabb3 2y ago

As usual, it's not the tech.. it's the business model.