Too good NOT to share.

My brothers and sisters in Christ I want you to know that I care about your souls enough to share these truths with you:

  • You don’t need JavaScript to make a web page.
  • You don’t need JavaScript to write styles.
  • You don’t need JavaScript to make an animation.
  • You don’t need JavaScript just to show content.
  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    When web development started to move away from jQuery towards Angular, React, Ember, Vue and all that shit I made the conscious decision to stay away from front end development. Well, I already made the decision after struggling aligning elements in all web browsers with CSS.

    I’m glad I made that decision.

    Simplicity is unsophisticated and lacking in many parts. The simplest solution to a problem is always the best solution. Choose simplicity. I’m begging you. Your future is begging you.

    This goes with all of programming. It’s rare someone makes a clever solution that doesn’t immediately turn into “technical debt”.

    • shnizmuffin@lemmy.inbutts.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Hey, I was in a similar situation at that inflection point but veered into PHP application development and couldn’t quite get away from the front end. Let me tell you: CSS Flexbox and Grid are amazing. AlpineJS is “just the good parts” of jQuery. You can go back now. Check out 11ty.

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    But nah. These goobers got high off npm modules and did shots of JSX in the bathroom at lunch time.

    Fucking LoL!

    Anyone here have thoughts about doing basic interactive stuff with at most vanilla JS?

    • macniel@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Vanilla JS is perfectly fine to do basic interactive stuff. Data Binding is a bit trickier but can be achieved neatly with Web Components. I like it.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yea, I’m unclear on how you can take web components and still have widespread browser support (not knowing enough about their ins and outs).

        Plain template elements are widely supported and have been for ~10 years (which ideologically matters to me along the same lines as the top post’s article) … perhaps a little bit of hacking together can get you close with just that?

        • macniel@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Every browser released since 2020 supports this (custom elements that is), so I don’t see an issue with browser support.

          You mean the Html template Element? I’ve never really got that to work, but I also never seriously tried.

          • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Every browser released since 2020 supports this

            It’s a little paranoid of me, but I like the idea that a basic web app I make can be thrown onto any old out of date machine, where ~2015 or younger seems about right for me ATM.

            You mean the Html template Element? I’ve never really got that to work, but I also never seriously tried.

            Yea. From memory, it’s just an unrendered chunk of HTML that you can select and clone with a bit of JS. I always figured there’d be a pattern that isn’t too much of a cludge and gets you some useful amount of the way to components for basic “vanilla-js” pages, just never gave it a shot either.

  • lowleveldata@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    No we don’t need it. But is it better if we use it? Like, you don’t need OOP for implementing literally anything either.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      When you hold a hammer everything looks like a nail. Just because it’s useful in some cases doesn’t mean it’s always the best solution.

      The article mostly rants about front end devs using unnecessarily complex solutions for simple problems. Like using React for generating static web sites.

      • mamotromico@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I get what he means and in most points I agree (I’ve worked primarily as a front end dev so far in my career), but as you get more familiar with these frameworks they tend to be so much faster to iterate on compared to a more “cleaner” setup. I’ve seen plenty of situations where using such frameworks were clearly overkill, but were still much faster to setup and were ready to be expanded on if needed in the future. Everything about the package ecosystem on web dev he’s 100% on point though. Things like the left pad situation are insane.

      • lowleveldata@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I feel like this is more like a hammer vs bare hand situation. If the point is there is a place and time for everything (except VBA) then I agree.

  • Kissaki@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    extending the list

    • You don’t need JavaScript to build web pages
    • You don’t need JavaScript to publish web pages
  • Kissaki@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Nested CSS obscures complexity

    An interesting point. Something I will take with me for observation and consideration.

    Maybe sometimes it’s worth despite it and other times not.