On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Ron W <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > true enough - it's just been a question of effort. We keep the JS to a > minimum (even moreso because it's tedious to add ;). > > Perhaps it is good that it is tedious to add/edit the JS?
You might have the wrong impression about the sort of web developer I am. I’m the sort that runs NoScript in Firefox, not the sort that throws whizzy things onto the web because they’re whizzy. I want my news site to load without needing any JS. But a web app? Entirely different story. I think a web app should push as much code out to the client side as it can get away with. I believe this because I miss the days of native client-side code, when a button click could be handled by C/C++ code near-instantly. We bought ourselves quite a mixed bag of ease and pain when we traded that world for a new platform that made UI development easy, but where each button’s click handler is off on another computer dozens of milliseconds away, where event handlers might now return a completely new UI instead of just the smallest amount of data that allows the UI to update in place. With today’s fast CPUs, Ajax lets us bring back the native client, for all practical purposes. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
