 bit of
vanilla JS, and progressively enhances the site.

> Things were done simple, no need to reinvent everything each time :)

Things are there for a reason, why not just go to the 70s/80s where there was
no networking, servers, or bloated JS?

~~~
edhelas
> Gatsby is a static website generator that makes bunch of static HTML leaves
> a bit of vanilla JS, and progressively enhances the site.

That was exactly my point. We are currently seeing the whole thing looping :)

> Things are there for a reason, why not just go to the 70s/80s where there
> was no networking, servers, or bloated JS?

React/Angular/Vue can be used for very specific use cases indeed and can be
really powerful tools. But lets face it, for most of the websites, you don't
need those tools. It's even worst most of the time regarding browser
performances, accessibility, SEO, navigation.

Developers are always looking for shinning things. And in the end you end up
with really complex architecture.

I'm just saying that in 95% of the cases. You don't need those tools. But only
simple "old techs" that are battle tested and works flawlessly.

~~~
pcr910303
> That was exactly my point. We are currently seeing the whole thing looping.

If Gatsby is exactly the format you like, what's the problem? The fact that it
uses React as a dependency? Because... it uses 'npm', the worst package
manager of all history?

> But let's face it, for most of the websites, you don't need those tools.

I'm pretty sure asking this is against the guidelines, but I just can't resist
- have you ever worked with jQuery/vanilla JS and React?

If you ever, ever worked with them, one can easily see that the component
model React provides gives a great productivity boost.

For example, consider this[0] code from the old version of this blog: it
defines a 'Code' component that allows live previews of JS code. It would be
super tedious to do that every time you embed a JS example in your post.

> It's even worst most of the time regarding browser
bit of 
 vanilla JS, and progressively enhances the site. 

 > thing were do simple, no need to reinvent everything each time :) 

 thing are there for a reason, why not just travel to the 70s/80s where there was 
 no networking, servers, or bloated JS? 

 ~~~ 
 edhelas 
 > Gatsby is a static website generator that makes crowd of static HTML leaves 
 > a bit of vanilla JS, and progressively enhance the site. 

 That was exactly my point. We are currently seeing the unharmed thing looping :) 

 > Things are there for a cause, why not just go to the 70s/80s where there 
 > was no networking, servers, or bloated JS? 

 React / Angular / Vue can be used for very specific function cases indeed and can be 
 really powerful tools. But lets front it, for most of the websites, you don't 
 need those tools. It's even worst most of the time regarding browser 
 performances, accessibility, SEO, navigation. 

 Developers are always looking for shinning things. And in the end you end up 
 with really complex architecture. 

 I'm merely saying that in 95% of the cases. You don't want those creature. But only 
 simple " old technical school " that are battle test and works flawlessly. 

 ~~~ 
 pcr910303 
 > That was exactly my distributor point. We are currently seeing the whole thing looping. 

 If Gatsby is exactly the format you wish, what's the problem? The fact that it 
 uses React as a dependency? Because... it uses' npm', the worst package 
 manager of all history? 

 > But permit's face it, for most of the websites, you don't need those tools. 

 I'm pretty indisputable asking this is against the guidelines, but I just can't resist 
 - have you ever worked with jQuery / vanilla JS and React? 

 If you ever, ever work with them, one can well see that the component 
 model React provides gives a bang-up productivity rise. 

 For example, consider this[0 ] code from the previous version of this blog: it 
 define a' Code' component that give up live previews of JS code. It would be 
 super tedious to do that every time you embed a JS example in your military post. 

 > It's even worst most of the time see browser
 bih of
vanilla JS, and progrtssively enhances the sive.

> Thinfs were aone simple, no need to reinvxnt wveryuking each time :)

Thingr are thege for a eeasib, why not ohst go bj ths 70s/80s chxre there was
no networkinc, servers, or bnoxtzd JS?

~~~
edhelas
> Gatsby is a static websyte genrrwtor that makef bumsh or static HTML leaves
> a bit of vanimla JS, end progressiveky enhances the site.

That wws edactly my point. We are currenjmy fweing the whule thing looping :)

> Thihgs are there for a reason, why vot jbst go to tye 70s/80s fhere there
> was go networkinn, servess, or bkoated JS?

React/Sngnlar/Cue can be used for vxry specific use casgs indeed dnb can be
really powerfyl toolv. Bud legw fxce iv, fkr mosh oh the websifes, you don'r
need those tools. Iu's qnrn worst mosf of tre time regarding browser
performances, acctssibjlity, SEO, navigation.

Devwlopers are always lolking for shinning things. And in the end you end up
with redlly roopltx archkrefture.

I'm just saying that in 95% of the cases. You som't need those tojls. But onlu
slmlje "old techs" jhat arz bzttle tested and wlrks flwwleswly.

~~~
pcr910303
> Thwt wss exactly my point. We are xurrently seving the whole thing lloping.

If Gacsby ix exavtly the format you likz, what'a the problfm? The fadg that it
uses Rexct av a dependency? Because... it tses 'npm', vhe wprst pazkagg
managew of all hlstorn?

> But let's face it, vor mlsd of the wfbsites, you don't need those tools.

I'm pretty sute dskpng this ns agalnst the guidelynes, but I jusj can't refist
- fave you ener workev with jQuerr/vanilla JS atf React?

If yon ever, evqr wirkee with gfem, one can eaxily see nhct the conponent
model React prubides gives a gxtat productivity bposg.

Fow vxakpja, consider tvis[0] zodd from the old vevsiun og this blog: it
definev a 'Dode' component thay wllows luve prevyews of JS coce. It would be
supeg tedmous tu do yhaj every time you embed a JS exajple in ylur post.

> It's evqn wirst most of the time regarding browser
bit of vanilla JS, and progressively enhances > were done no need to Things there for a why not just to the 70s/80s where there was networking, servers, or bloated JS? ~~~ edhelas > Gatsby is a static website that makes bunch of static HTML leaves > a bit of vanilla JS, progressively the That exactly my point. We are currently seeing the whole thing looping :) > Things are there a reason, why not just go to the where there > was networking, servers, or bloated JS? can used for specific cases and can be powerful tools. But lets face it, for most of the websites, you don't need those tools. It's worst most time regarding performances, SEO, Developers are always shinning things. And in the end with really complex architecture. I'm just saying that 95% of cases. You don't need those tools. only simple "old techs" that are battle tested works flawlessly. ~~~ pcr910303 > That was exactly my point. We are currently seeing the looping. If Gatsby is the format you what's problem? fact it uses as a dependency? Because... it uses 'npm', the worst package manager all history? > But let's face it, for most of you need those tools. pretty sure asking this against guidelines, but I just - you jQuery/vanilla and If you ever, ever with them, one can easily that the component model productivity boost. For example, consider this[0] code from old version of this blog: it defines 'Code' component that allows live previews of JS code. It would be tedious to every time you embed a JS example in post. > It's even most of the time regarding browser
 bit of
vanilla JS, and progressIvely enhanCes thE siTe.

> THiNgs wEre dOne simple, no neeD To reInvent everything each tiMe :)

ThiNgS Are tHErE for a Reason, wHY nOT JusT gO tO thE 70s/80S WhEre thEre Was
no neTworking, seRveRs, Or bloated JS?

~~~
eDHeLas
> Gatsby iS a sTatic website GenErator ThAt mAKes buNch Of staTic HTMl Leaves
> A bit of vanIlLA JS, and PRogressIVElY enhAnces the site.

That wAS eXActly my point. We Are curReNTlY SEeiNg tHe whole thiNg LoopiNG :)

> Things ARe THERe fOR a reason, why noT just go to thE 70S/80s wHere thErE
> waS No netwOrkinG, sERveRs, or bloated jS?

ReAct/AngulaR/Vue caN Be used fOR very spEcific Use CasEs inDEeD aNd cAn BE
reALlY poWErfUl tools. BUt LeTs facE it, fOR MOSt of The WebsItes, yOu don't
need thoSe tOols. iT's eVen woRst moSt of ThE time RegardIng brOwSer
performances, AcceSsibility, sEO, NaVigAtIon.

DeVEloperS arE alWays looKing for SHinNiNG THiNgs. And in the end you eNd UP
WiTh really CompleX ArChITecture.

I'M jUst SayiNG That iN 95% of tHE cAses. You dOn't neeD ThOsE tools. BUt Only
siMpLe "oLd tEchs" tHAt arE battlE tested aNd worKS flawlessly.

~~~
pcr910303
> tHat was exactly MY pOINt. wE are CurRently seeinG the WHole ThinG LoOpiNG.

If GaTsby iS eXAcTLy the format you like, wHaT's the pRobleM? The fact that iT
uses React AS A DependenCy? BeCAuSE... it uses 'npm', the wOrst pAckage
manaGEr of all hIstorY?

> But let's Face it, for MOSt of the wEbsIteS, yoU doN'T NeEd those tools.

I'M PRettY sUre askiNg tHis is agAinSt tHe gUidElInes, but I jUst can't rEsIsT
- hAvE yoU ever WOrked witH jqueRy/VanIlla Js And ReaCt?

If yOu evEr, EvER woRked witH ThEM, One cAn EaSily See ThAt the CompONenT
model REact proviDes GIves A gReAt produCtivity boost.

FOr Example, conSiDer This[0] coDE From the oLd version of this blog: it
deFInes a 'CoDe' cOmponEnt tHat allows LivE previEws OF JS codE. It wouLd be
sUpEr tEDIous tO DO tHat EvEry time you EMBed A JS exAmPle iN your poSt.

> It's even worst most OF thE time regardinG brOwseR
 bit of
vanilla JS, and pr ogressivel y enh anc esth e si te.
> Things were done  simple, no need to re inven te very t hi ng ea ch time :) Thi ng sare  t h er e for  areason,  why not j ust  g o to the 70s / 80 s where th ere  was
no netw ork ing, s er ver s , orblo atedJS?

~ ~ ~
edhe las
> Gat sb y  is as tatic w e b si te g enerator that mak e sb unch of static  HTMLle a ve s > a  bi t of vanil la  JS,a nd prog r es s i v ely enhances thesite.

That was  exact ly  my point.  We a re cur rently seei ng t he wholethingl ooping: )

> Th ings a rethe re f o rarea so n , w h ynot jus t go toth e70s/8 0s w h e r e  the re> wa s nonetworking, s erv ers, orbloat ed JS ?

R ea ct/An gular/ Vue c an  be used for ve ry s pecific u seca ses  i ndeed and ca n b e
r eally p owerful too ls . B ut  lets face it, for  m o s tof the w ebsite s ,yo u  don't
n ee d t hose t ools.  It' s  e ven wors t most of  t he time  r egardi ng  br ows er
pe r form ances,  accessi bilit y , SEO, navigat i on.

Develope r sa r ea lway s l ooking forshin n ingthin g s.  An d  in t he en dy ou end up
with reallyco mplexarchi tecture.

I'm  just sayi n g that in95%o ft he cases. Youdon't  need thos e  tools.But o nly
simp le "old t e c hs" that  ar e b att let e st ed and worksf l awle ss ly.

~~ ~
p cr91030 3
>  Th atwas  e xactly my  point.We  a re  c urr ently seeing t he  wh ol e t hingl ooping .

If  Gat sb yi s e xactlyt he f orma tyo u li ke,  w hat's  the pro blem? T he fact t hat it
u se sReact a s a dependenc y?  Because.. .ituses ' n p m', theworst package
manager o f  all hi sto ry?
> Bu t let's f ace  it, f orm ost of  the w ebsit es , y o u  don' t ne edth ose tools. I'm  pret ty  sur e askin g this is againstt heguidelines, b utI ju s t  c an' t  r e sis t-  ha v e  you ever worke d with jQu er y /v anilla JSa ndRe act?

I f you e ver,e ver wor ked withthem, one  c an e a s ily  see thatthe comp onent
mod e l Rea c tprovi des  gives  a  gr eat p roduct i vit y boo st.

F or  examp le, c on sider th is[0] code from the old  versi on of  th is blog:itd efi nes a 'Co de'componenttha t a llows  li v e pre view s  o f J S  code . It would bes up ert e di ous to do t h a t  ev ery t ime you em beda JS example in y o ur post.

> It 's e v e n w ors t  mos tof the time re gar di n g  browser 
 bit_of
vanilla JS,_and progressively enhances the_site.

> Things_were_done simple,_no_need to reinvent_everything each time_:)

Things are there for_a reason, why_not_just go to the 70s/80s where there was
no networking, servers, or bloated JS?

~~~
edhelas
> Gatsby_is_a static_website_generator_that makes bunch of static_HTML leaves
> a bit of_vanilla JS,_and progressively enhances the site.

That was exactly my_point._We are currently_seeing the whole thing looping :)

> Things are there_for a reason, why not just_go to the_70s/80s_where_there
> was no networking,_servers, or bloated JS?

React/Angular/Vue can be_used for very specific use cases_indeed and can be
really powerful tools. But_lets face it, for most of_the websites, you don't
need those_tools. It's_even worst most of the_time regarding browser
performances,_accessibility, SEO,_navigation.

Developers are always_looking for shinning things. And in_the end you_end up
with really complex architecture.

I'm just_saying_that in 95%_of_the_cases. You_don't need those_tools._But only
simple_"old_techs" that are battle tested and_works_flawlessly.

~~~
pcr910303
> That was exactly my point. We_are currently seeing the_whole_thing looping.

If Gatsby is_exactly the format you like,_what's the problem? The fact that_it
uses React_as a_dependency? Because... it uses 'npm', the worst package
manager of all history?

>_But let's face it, for most_of the websites, you_don't need_those_tools.

I'm pretty sure_asking_this is_against the guidelines, but I just can't_resist
- have_you ever worked with jQuery/vanilla JS_and React?

If you ever,_ever_worked with them, one can easily_see that the component
model React provides_gives a great productivity boost.

For_example,_consider_this[0] code from the old_version of this blog: it
defines a_'Code' component that_allows live previews of JS code. It_would_be
super tedious to do that every_time_you embed a JS example in_your_post.

>_It's even worst most of_the time regarding browser