Once you remove JS from the browser, now the Web is no longer based on an error-prone slow programming language, so it's a lot more natural for people to choose higher-quality languages (as opposed to hacks on top of JS like TypeScript).
-
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @RihoKroll and
Then once you have real programming languages, why do you have all this DOM stuff and wtf is CSS for anyway, just let peoples' code lay out the text, and get rid of all that junk.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @RihoKroll and
There will of course be common libraries for doing this, so that people don't have to write it themselves. But the difference is, when it's just user-level code doing the layout, you have the power to change it. When it is built into the browser, you do not, and instead
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @RihoKroll and
have to engage in endless hacks that almost but don't quite solve the problem, like everyone does today.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @mattgperry and
Eh, that'd just make it harder to make apps and require more experience to make something good. I think it's too hard to make good apps as it is, even with a perfect understanding of the platform. I'd want it be easier to make good experiences.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RihoKroll @Jonathan_Blow and
Also the only good part (as far as I'm concerned) of DOM, is that it's a common vocabulary between a lot of people and therefore standards can be enforced and promoted. If everyone is flying a custom display tree impl. it'll be even harder to do stuff like screen readers, for ex.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RihoKroll @Jonathan_Blow and
Which people neglect as it is, even with the standards. But at the very least people are forced to use image tags for images for example (to an extent). Code editors can even warn of missing alt descriptions on images.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RihoKroll @mattgperry and
That's fine, I am not going to argue with you about this any more. I was under the impression that you actually were interested in improving the situation, but you seem to have this mindset that the current situation is the best possible way to do what we have,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @RihoKroll and
and that anything else is not possibly better, because tautologically that's how it is. If you want to live in the ruins of the precursor civilization, go ahead and do that, but that is not my jam.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @mattgperry and
I see why you'd get that impression, but nothing could be further from the truth. I'm only trying to offer insight into why the current situation is what it is, and why it isn't because all web devs are imbeciles that don't know anything about computers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There are an infinite number of ways to implement the set of functionality that we want. What we have now is does not supply that functionality particularly well, as it often breaks and is very slow and it is actually very hard to make things, as evidenced by the number
-
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @RihoKroll and
of engineers employed at places like Twitter. It should be clear that it is possible to get the functionality that we want in a better way. But you are arguing that the current infrastructure is required to get the current functionality. This makes no sense to me and, besides,
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @RihoKroll and
is inherently defeatist. In my experience it is not worth talking to people with defeatist attitudes, instead I just go do productive things and then I win the argument by making the good thing while they are sitting around on their ass. In this case that won't happen since
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.