[yawaramin]

> The only thing that might is a wholesale different client architecture that sacrifices features and polish to provide the slimmest code possible. That is, an alternate "lite/basic" mode. Unfortunately, this style of approach has rarely proved successful

But it is gaining popularity with the unexpected rise of htmx and its 'simpler is better even if it's slightly worse' philosophy.

[golergka]

Isn't that 'worse is better' philosophy?

[LoganDark]

I think it's rather a "performance is more important than functionality" philosophy.

[yawaramin]

In the case of the devices we're talking about, performance is effectively functionality.

[LoganDark]

My point exactly. By making your website fast and light, you make it easier and more pleasant to use. HTMX has a limited set of actions that it supports, so it can't do everything that people typically want. It can do more than enough though. (remember websites that actually used the `<form>` element?)

[lukan]

The most performant site is a blank page.

[fuzzfactor]

Astute observation.

It should be easy to use this as a "north star" and your only job is to not screw it up hardly at all.

Some people are just worse screw-ups than others.

[sussmannbaka]

Good news for bloated JS SPAs, since that is often what they look like :)