I know he didn't explain his position in details, so a 1800-word article sounds a little unfair, but I think dry and sharp statements need adequate context and analysis.
@MaxArt2501@cferdinandi We need to talk more about the acceptable amount of JS during page load. So many websites load 5+ MB of JS which is unacceptable. As long as this problem persists, people with low-end phones will have a poor experience on the web.
@simevidas@MaxArt2501 I will continue to maintain that JS is in fact the problem. YES, sometimes it's required. But for content where it isn't, or where you can provide a sensible baseline that you progressively enhance, requiring JS is an anti-pattern. You literally cannot change my mind about this.
@simevidas@cferdinandi I absolutely cannot fathom how 5 MB of JavaScript could be necessary on page load, indeed. Not even for an intranet, Chrome-only B2B web app.
As I've said in the article, JavaScript should be used wisely. We're on the same page there, I think.
@MaxArt2501@simevidas Sorry, re-reading this and realizing what you're asking. Payloads of that size are very common with React apps. Do they need that much? Of course not. But it would mean rebuilding them without React.
And back to my original point: a lot of that HTML doesn't and shouldn't require JS at all. JS is in fact the problem.
@cferdinandi@MaxArt2501@simevidas I think Massimo is generally making the point that some web sites require JS for core activities, not as a design choice, but out of technical necessity. (My own example: media player). Once you accept that JS is required on a site, you make different decisions about web component design. Designing WCs so there’s a noJS fallback - as you promote, Chris - is a valid choice, it’s just not the only sensible choice.
Add comment