Comment by spartanatreyu

Comment by spartanatreyu 12 hours ago

4 replies

This is the wrong way of looking at it.

Making a website's basic functionality work without JS isn't just for the random users who switch off their browser's JS runtime.

It's also for the people who have a random network dropout or slowdown on a random file (in this case a JS file).

handoflixue 11 hours ago

> It's also for the people who have a random network dropout or slowdown on a random file (in this case a JS file).

Does that really apply when the javascript is only ~2kb?

  • spartanatreyu 9 hours ago

    Yes, any request can get stuck at any time.

    That is what's happening any time you've seen a website that randomly decides to load without styles, or with a missing image.

    The good thing is that it's very apparent when that happens and you can just reload the page.

    But it's not immediately obvious when it happens with a JS file.

    That's half the reason why you shouldn't re-implement css features in a js file. (the other half is performance)

  • justsomehnguy 6 hours ago

    Do the end user should troubleshoot if that was a network dropout, some browser incompatibility or just a crappy code by a crappy coder?

    > the javascript is only ~2kb?

    It can be even 200Mb if it's not loaded properly and now a website doesn't even function.

lmm 6 hours ago

Then why does that same logic not apply to the CSS file?