Re:You might not need JavaScript
by fenomas on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @04:26AM
(#12691192)
Do any of the examples use Javascript? Or are you saying the site shouldn't use JS for syntax highlighting or whatever, even though that's not the sort of thing it claims JS isn't needed for?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:You might not need JavaScript
by Retr0spectrum on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @05:20AM
(#12691444)
If you look at the source, there are plany of JS files being loaded. Mostly from codepen, but also from the site itself.
I don't see any features of this site which should require javascript, so they should probably "practise what they preach".
Technically, they're preaching that you might not need JavaScript rather than advocating against it
Re:You might not need JavaScript
by eyelidlessness on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @12:24PM
(#12694242)
Why would syntax highlighting need JavaScript?
The browser doesn't natively support syntax highlighting (they aren't features of HTML or CSS).
That hardly makes sense. Changing the color of text is definitely a feature of HTML and CSS.
What's the lazy reason for not rendering that before serving the html page.
Re:You might not need JavaScript
by eyelidlessness on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @05:16PM
(#12696476)
It depends what you mean by "support". There are two things a JavaScript syntax highlighter is doing:
1. Classify each token (whether this is building up an AST or doing something more fuzzy/clever is immaterial for this discussion); 2. Construct a DOM tree (HTML) that is styled (CSS).
Step 1 does not have to happen client-side at all. Step 2 doesn't require JavaScript at all.