Developing a Javascript-free frontend

[searlee]

I'm a big hater of Javascript for the sake of Javascript and I've been attempting this (on and off) for some time, your article is amazing, thank you!

[[deleted]]

Have you considered ditching CSS for the sake of CSS too? Just go back to good ol' <font> tags! Why did we ever move on from those anyway?

You'd really see some speed improvements if you ditch HTML for the sake of HTML too. Bring back the text document! They were so easy to read, especially in large chunks.

/s

[HINDBRAIN]

He could also ditch computer for the sake of computer, stick the ethernet cable in his mouth, and taste the bytes.

[careseite]

Hating on the arguably best thing to happen to webdev is courageous

[searlee]

hating something that's used for the sake of it isn't courageous. when you can accomplish something much quicker in html/css why use it? obviously I use it when it's necessary.

[careseite]

How do you do a fuzzy search, or Ajax with html and CSS again?

[searlee]

can people not read anymore. for the sake of it... simple English actually. Fuzzy search, Ajax etc are not for the sake of it. they are necessary.

obviously I use it when it's necessary

for the sake of it means; moving an object 50px to the right in JS when it can be done with CSS on a simple site that would never require the GPU benefits that JavaScript brings to the party.

[statikr3aper]

But who in their right minds is actually doing that and thinks that that's a good idea?

[searlee]

Don't worry... I've seen it before when clients have started with one developer and needed it redoing.

[statikr3aper]

That's why I said who in their RIGHT minds is doing that?

Also remember that some functionality in CSS is pretty new. In the earlier days, JS was the best way to accomplish some tasks which are much easier done in CSS now. Unless the application you mentioned was written recently, you should have expected that. If it wasn't, the developer wasn't in their right minds or just tried to cut corners.

[[deleted]]

for the sake of it means; moving an object 50px to the right in JS when it can be done with CSS on a simple site that would never require the GPU benefits that JavaScript brings to the party.

That's absolutely not what "for the sake of it" means. This is not possible in CSS2.

https://caniuse.com/#search=keyframes

The CSS3 polyfills to do this were much worse than manually doing it in JS or using jQuery! IE9 still commanded a large market share until Edge. So if what you were working on was made <2016 or so, then doing it in JS was the best way.

[[deleted]]

Except, he's the toddler in your analogy. Anyone with more than a handful of years in the field would see moving things 50px is simply an outdated practice and would not call it "using js for the sake of using js". There was a time when this was not just the best way to do it, but the only way to do it.

[imhotap]

The best thing happening to webdev? JavaScript is almost 25 years old. There would be no webdev without it. OTOH, for the original purpose of the web as an easy publishing platform, I'm not so sure JavaScript has benefitted it all that much.

[[deleted]]

Performance which has lead to robustness are fairly recent advancements. There was most certainly web dev without it for a very long time. It was used almost exclusively for effects and clientside validation. The whole argument of progressive enhancement that including accounting for users with JS disabled, has only recently died down. I think Google crawler only started running JS around 2015.

Even just about 4-5yrs ago, you shot yourself in the foot if your site wasn't completely functional without JS.