If you have static content, then sure, serve up some SSR HTML. But pages with even static content usually have some form of interactivity, like searching (suggestions/auto-complete), etc. 🤷‍♂️

😆 F—ck, I hear you loud and clear on that one. But that's a different problem altogether, organizing information.

People suck at that. I don't think they ever even use their own site or have it tested on anyone before shipping. Sometimes it's absolutely impossible to find information about something, like even what a product even is or does. So stupid.

News site dev here. I’ll never build a site for this company that relies on js for anything other than video playback (yay hls patents, and they won’t let me offer mp4 as an alternative because preroll pays our bills, despite everyone feeling entitled to free news with no ads)

That would make the website feel ultra slow since a full page load would be needed every time. Something as simple as a slide out menu needs JavaScript and couldn't really be done server side.

When if you said just send the parts of the page that changed, that dynamic content loading would still be JavaScript. Maybe an iframe could get you somewhere but that's a hacky work around and you couldn't interact between different frames

Not sure that was the issue. I mean more that if you use only HTML and CSS all you'll be able to create would be static sites that only change the contents of the page by full reloads. 🙂

I had a bit of trouble following that first paragraph. I don't understand what it is that you say it sounds like I'm saying.

Either way, none of what you wrote I disagree with. I feel the same. Bad design does not elicit trust.

If I didn't input it myself with a punch card I refuse to run it.

CSS doing most of the heavy-lifting java is usually crutched to do

JavaScript you mean? Some small subset of things that JavaScript was forced to handle before can be done in CSS, yes, but that only goes for styling and layout, not interactivity, obviously.

I did webdev before the framework blight. That's the basis for my claim that javascript lamers are just lazy

There is some extremely heavy prejudice and unnecessary hate going on here, which is woefully misdirected. Well get to that. But the amount of time that has passed since you did web dev might put you at a disadvantage to make claims about web development these days. 👍

Anyway. Us JavaScript/TypeScript "lamers" are doing the best with what we've got. The web platform is very broken and fragmented because of its history. It's not something regular web devs can do much about. We use the framework or library that suits us best for the task at hand and the resources we are given (time, basically). It's not like any project will be your dream unicorn project where you get to decide the infrastructure from the start or get to invent a new library or a new browser to target that does things differently and doesn't have to be backwards compatible with the web at large. Things don't work this way.

Don't you think we sigh all day because we have to monkey patch the web to make our sites behave in the way the acceptance criteria demand? You call that lazy, but we are working our knuckles to the bone to make things work reasonably well for as many people as we can, including accessibility for those with reduced function. It's not an easy task.

... "Lazy." I scoffed in offense, to be honest with you.

It's like telling someone who made bread from scratch they're lazy for not growing their own wheat, ffs.

Let's see you do better. 👍👍👍👍👍👍