css can do animations, and it’s much more performant then js. I hate how over-used JavaScript is on “modern” websites.
some websites are even straight up unusable or don’t display anything with js disabled…
Some websites, JavaScript is necessary for doing things without overloading a server. Mostly SPAs/PWAs and such. I’m using Voyager for Lemmy right now, which needs JS, but it gives me a great experience.
But yeah, JS is often overused. Luckily, with new technologies coming out like Astro and HTMX, we should hopefully start seeing less JavaScript on pages that don’t need it.
However, it uses a lot less JS. It’s only a few lines of JS to replace an HTML element, but a lot more to parse a bunch of JSON and then alter the HTML to reflect that.
I was there for the first wave of SPAs, I even learned angularJs and Knockout. It did feel like a major atep forward, being able to make highly interactive applications. However, things quickly went off the rails when the tools stopped being about managing heavy client state, and became the default for everything, even when it ment using JavaScript to build extremely basic functionally browsers did natively with html, but extremely worse(e.g. navigation). The modern Web really is a victim of hype and trends.
Unless your app needs to work offline, or you have to manage dozens of constantly changing client side data points concurrently, your site doesn’t need to be a big heavy js framework. My rule is if it looks like Google Maps, you need a SPA. if it looks like Gmail you need REST/HATEOS. and if it looks like google’s mainpage, you need a server side rendering.
At some point you might see the light, and go back to making your websites simpler, but Im not hopeful. Until then I’m building the majority of things with HTMX and alpineJs.
Not really true. Python was created for, and is still best used for data science. It’s user-friendliness made it a first for many inexperienced programmers too, and it started to be used for way more than it was initially intended. I’m not saying it’s bad at everything else, but there’s most certainly better tools for the job.
I won’t argue with what it was created for, but I disagree that it’s best usecase isn’t as a bash replacement. That’s the only spot I’ve used and liked it.
If we’re talking about 5 like script, then sure. Just use bash. But python is much better long term, in my experience, for scripts any bigger than that.
There are many cases where bash/shell is better than Python. For one, any time you’re just stringing together 2-4 existing shell tools, bash has unbeatable speed since it’s all running in C. Plus, you should probably learn the tools anyways to handle CLI stuff on a day-to-day level, so the knowledge is reusable and becomes very intuitive to compose into some crazy one-liner piped chains of commands. If I just want to loop over a set of directories and do a couple chained CLI commands on each directory, this is the way I go.
That said, in cases where you’re doing something very custom, any time you’re doing something that can’t be simply described as a chain of CLI tool transformations, and any time you want to maintain a global state across a complex set of operations outside of a pipeline, I agree that Python is generally a more robust solution with much easier maintainability.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.