Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lsaferite 497 days ago
It's funny. Further up in this discussion is someone sharing their demo of using XSLT to dynamically assemble a page from parts. This process properly caches the fragments as well. No JS required, just the default rendering process for the browser. But XML+XSLT is the "red-headed stepchild" that everyone seems to hate.

Writing a SPA just to recreate the built-in functionality of rendering a static page on the client side is overkill IMHO. If it's an actual application (the A in SPA), then fine. But for what is essentially a static website... why?
2 comments
chuckadams 496 days ago
> XML+XSLT is the "red-headed stepchild" that everyone seems to hate

One look at XSLT syntax and you learn why.

link
lsaferite 495 days ago
I mean, I've used XSLT plenty in my career and I honesty don't have any issues with it at a high level. It's essentially just another templating format with the added benefit of being a markup language itself and being rendered directly by browsers without adding any JS.
link
lelanthran 497 days ago
Your take is getting more and more uncharitable.

In what world is 60 lines of JS an SPA?

Come on, enquiring minds want to know. Show us all this SPA you know off that is 60 lines or less.

link
lsaferite 495 days ago
So, I think perhaps you are confusing me with the person further up in the thread. They said "don't use a SPA". You replied with a counter argument about JS. Then *I* pointed out someone else in the thread demonstrating using XML+XSLT to to client-side rendering and I called out people using SPAs to dynamically render what is essentially a static website. So "Your take is getting more and more uncharitable" seem to assume that the GP and myself are the same, and we are not.

Your last line seems overly aggressive and confrontational. I have zero desire to engage with that.

All that being said, have a wonderful day.

link