| > HTML was meant to be used for static documents So? What does that have to do with "technologies the browser offers us"? The browser now offers a thorough set of DOM bindings in JS, which is definitely not meant to be used for static documents. Quite the opposite. > CSS (single file, linked to by all documents) was meant to add styling to all those documents. That's still how it works? > JS was meant to add simple interactivity to documents Before the DOM, sure > Navigating between documents reloads everything and no state is kept (other than user sessions of course) Which was horrible UX Everything you go on to say seems to be some puritanical bend on never evolving software. The platform and its usage have co-evolved, and now we have a complete app distribution platform where a 1MB bundle can deliver equivalent functionality to an app taking hundreds of megabytes on the phone platform, except this 1MB bundle can support screen sizes from the smallest phones to the largest desktops. I genuinely don't understand what kind of complaint this is: > We've built layers on top of layers of abstraction Should we go back to writing Assembly? Wait, isn't this a higher level than machine code? Wait, isn't that still interpreted by the CPU into microcode? ... > Instead of coming up with a new way of building actual applications Honestly, I don't get it. We did come up with a way of building actual applications, it's called the browser, using HTML/CSS/JS. I don't care that some people write it in a file called .jsx or .tsx - is using TypeScript also offensive to you? - I still deliver a static HTML/CSS/JS bundle to users. That seems like the ultimate validation of the original concepts in those technologies, they are so expressive that we're able to circumvent the need to start from scratch yet again, instead evolving themselves to be a performant, compact app delivery platform. > It's a constant fight and a gigantic waste of everyone's time The gigantic waste of everyone's time is thinking that starting from scratch will solve more issues than it will introduce. Good luck writing a new platform that supports not only many classes of devices and small packages, but also doesn't kill accessibility features, screen readers, and billions of man-hours of development that still works today. This is better than it was. Not sure what kind of person simultaneously argues "we can do better" and then rails against the evolution of usage of technologies that... made them better |
> So? What does that have to do with "technologies the browser offers us"? The browser now offers a thorough set of DOM bindings in JS, which is definitely not meant to be used for static documents. Quite the opposite.
I think they mean that syntactically, HTML is best suited to static documents, since that was the original design consideration. While the DOM has had things added to it to make it work as a declaritive UI language, that doesn't change the fact that the HTML spec at it's core is very focused on information hierarchy, typography and print-style layouts.
--
> > CSS (single file, linked to by all documents) was meant to add styling to all those documents.
> That's still how it works?
Yep! <link rel="stylesheet" href="./style.css" /> on every document, and you just keep adding to that file. (Not advisable but possible)
--
I could totally see us building a BETTER target platform; imagine a declaritive UI language that allows binding nativly? No "JS Main Thread" blocking weirdness, and frameworks would all use it making views/templates/components intercompatible. HTML is a weak solution to the problems modern web development faces...
BUT it's also a globally available solution making the annoynaces that come along with it just acceptable enough that we'll take the extra step to emulate a better platform with frameworks. It's available everywhere, and global change is hard or even impossible. It's working with what we have and I think that's good. But pushing for something better is also good. :)