I know everyone hates that question.. (I hate it too), but what about non-js users or, maybe more importantly, SEO or crawlers? Honestly, this is what is holding me back to go pure client-side for most of my projects.. I know there's the phantomJS server-side hack but how does that work in practice?
Also, something else that really trouble me with javascript client-side is that, often, when something bugs, everything just stop working. I.e. links don't work anymore, button obviously don't.. Is there a better solution than a hard-refresh? Would a first-level try/catch solve this problem?
> but what about non-js users or, maybe more importantly, SEO or crawlers
Hoodie is more of a tool for applications, with user authentication etc, so SEO is not relevant here. I wouldn't build a public website with Hoodie.
> Also, something else that really trouble me with javascript client-side is that, often, when something bugs, everything just stop working
Yes. That's something we have to handle if we want dynamic web apps build on web technologies. But there are great tools today that help you 1. prevent JavaScript by automated testing in all the browsers / OS 2. track JavaScript errors, e.g. with errorception. And 3. todays browsers are more relaxed about errors, they try to continue running the app, even if one function errored out.
> Is there a better solution than a hard-refresh? Would a first-level try/catch solve this problem
If you can keep the state of an app and store user's data immediately, there is no big problem to reload the page, I do that in several occasions at minutes.io, the user usually doesn't realize, it's very fast.
I know as tech people we're strong about using latest technologies and we like to think users are like us, but sadly, this is not the case. Actually, it really depends of your market.
"the web is no longer just text"
Although I can't deny that statement,I find it hard to convince myself that browsers can't read your page because no JS engines are running. I see it a little bit like emails.. yes, more recent clients give you a better interface or better features, but if I'm emailing someone who has a very old phone with very basic email support, I'm hoping that this person would still be able to read my message.
I'd love to see what would happen if HN turned JS-enabled only for a day.
I run noscript. If I encounter a site that's broken or useless for seemingly no reason (e.g. not an interactive thing like Google Maps), I often don't even whitelist; I just leave. Relatedly, I've stopped clicking on Photobucket or Blogspot links.
I kinda resent being expected to run your pile of arbitrary code just to render static text and images on my screen—something that worked just fine without JS twenty years ago.
While I admire your principled stand - you are in a dwindling minority so there isn't much reason to factor in people such as yourself when making technical decisions.
The SEO issue is a stronger argument but Googlebot now seems to be executing javascript in some cases so even that might cease to be an issue.
It's not just people like myself; it's people writing one-off scrapers, people writing new search engines or browsers (Google is not the entire universe), everyone when you forget a brace and break all of your JS, etc. The Web is not and has never been merely human beings sitting at a keyboard and using one of three known GUI browsers.
that's your choice, but don't pretend devs will change all their stack/development approach to take into account your refusal of using a technology that has been around for 15 years.
Also, something else that really trouble me with javascript client-side is that, often, when something bugs, everything just stop working. I.e. links don't work anymore, button obviously don't.. Is there a better solution than a hard-refresh? Would a first-level try/catch solve this problem?
Thanks!